PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill (By Order) Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time on Tuesday 12 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

India (UN Security Council)

Peter Luff: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of India about membership of the UN Security Council.

Douglas Alexander: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in Indian affairs. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed the issue with his Indian counterpart, Mr. Natwar Singh, during his visit to India on 18 February. The Foreign Secretary made clear the Government's long-standing position, which commands consensus across the House, of support for India's candidacy for permanent membership of the Security Council without the power of veto.

Peter Luff: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that India, as the largest democracy in the world, one of the fastest developing economies in the world and with a long-standing reputation as a champion of the wider developing world, has a right to expect that Security Council seat at the earliest possible date?

Douglas Alexander: It is obviously the case that it is appropriate that India's significance strategically, both in the regional grouping and around the world, is reflected in the support that Britain has offered. It is also the case that the Secretary-General, in his most recent report, indicated his personal desire that the matter be moved forward rapidly, which is obviously a subject of discussion in the United Nations at present.

Liam Byrne: The people of Kashmir have yearned for justice and the quiet miracle of a normal life for more than 57 years. My hon. Friend must recognise that there are grave reservations in many quarters of this country and beyond about admitting any nation to the United Nations Security Council while it is in breach of UNSC resolutions. Will he press the Indian Government in any future negotiations about the UNSC on the need for movement in implementing Security Council resolutions, and in particular on the need to admit independent human rights observers to all parts of Kashmir? Will he go further and tell political parties in this country that it is high time that one and all published their position on the region?

Douglas Alexander: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's considerable interest in Kashmir. The United Nations charter does not link Security Council membership with full implementation of all UN resolutions, but the important point to recognise is that there is a moment of opportunity in relations between India and Pakistan. I know that the subject has been of some interest to my hon. Friend for some time. We are greatly encouraged by the work on the consolidated process to date, so we encourage all parties to the conflict in Kashmir—the Indians, the Pakistanis and the people of Kashmir—to continue to engage in that constructive process.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister reiterate to the House and to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) that the issue of Kashmir will not be allowed to act as a veto on the important case for India's membership of the Security Council, support for which is shared across the House, even if not entirely unanimously on the Labour Benches? Can the Minister give the House his best estimate of when we can expect the whole business of the new Security Council membership to be resolved? How long does he think the process will take?

Douglas Alexander: The recent report by the Secretary-General, "In Larger Freedom", indicates his desire to see the matter moved forward expeditiously before the UN millennium development goals review summit in September. Whether that is feasible, time will tell, but the subject is clearly receiving much greater attention than it has previously and I am assured that much work is being taken forward by India and other nations concerned about and interested in those matters to try to find a way forward in the months ahead.

Brian Iddon: Although admitting that India has a good case to argue for a place on the Security Council, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to build confidence between Pakistan and India over the talks on Kashmir? If we allowed non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty, and UN observers to monitor human rights in Indian-controlled Kashmir that would help to bring the two sides together.

Douglas Alexander: We all have an interest in ensuring that breaches of human rights in that part of the world, or anywhere, are ended, so I endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. However, it is also important to acknowledge the pace of the progress that has already been achieved by India and Pakistan. Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss that with the Pakistani high commissioner in London and I celebrated the fact that a new bus service is being established between Pakistan and India, which is just the latest confidence-building measure in a process that we are keen should be continued and taken forward constructively.

Iraq

Harry Barnes: What recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary of Australia on policies in relation to the future of Iraq.

Bill Rammell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact several times with Foreign Minister Downer to discuss the situation in Iraq and in particular the deployment of additional Australian forces. We certainly welcome the Australian decision to deploy 450 troops to al-Muthanna, one of the four provinces in southern Iraq in the UK's area of responsibility.

Harry Barnes: Is my hon. Friend aware that on four recent occasions in Question Time in the Australian Parliament the Australian Foreign Secretary has used my involvement with the organisation Labour Friends of Iraq in an attempt to undermine the stance adopted by the Australian Labour party? However, that has led only to establishing better links between Labour Friends of Iraq and the Australian Labour party. As in Britain, people, whether for or against the invasion, can unite in helping the emerging Iraqi trade union and labour movement to play an active role in the development of civil society and democracy in that country.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will forgive me if I do not delve into Australian electoral politics, given that we have got a bit of that going on in this country at the moment, but I genuinely congratulate him not only on forming Labour Friends of Iraq, but on the significant contribution that he has made to the House over the past 18 years. I disagree with him over the decision to go to war with Iraq, but I respect his view, and I think that he respects mine. However, as he has demonstrated by his actions, whatever view we took on the war, it is crucial that we now work together to unite to help the Iraqis to build a free and peaceful Iraq, and I believe that his efforts in that regard represent a positive step forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: On Iraq's future, I spent some time out there about three weeks ago, and I was reminded by many people of the need for the infrastructure to be rebuilt as soon as possible. I realise that, in the less secure areas, such as Baghdad, that is impossible at this stage, although there is a huge task ahead: it is estimated that $55 billion needs to be spent between now and 2007, but only $2.5 billion has been spent hitherto. May I urge on the Minister the need to consider the possibility of putting in new infrastructure as soon as possible in the more secure areas, such as the south, Basra and so on? That is fundamentally important to keep everyone on board. By the way, the importance of this issue was confirmed by the head of the UN mission out there.

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is critically important that we redouble our efforts to improve the infrastructure in Iraq. Things are improving, and the Department for International Development is committing £40 million to a project to improve water supplies, sanitation and other aspects of the infrastructure. That project, which will start in April, is just one part of our overall commitment to rebuilding Iraq.

Darfur

Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on the position taken by the UK in the UN on Darfur.

Jack Straw: We have been very active in the UN Security Council to secure the passage of three Security Council resolutions on Sudan: 1590, on 24 March, provides for troops in support of the comprehensive peace agreement; and 1591, on 29 March, applies sanctions against those who impede the peace process and pose a threat to stability in Darfur. The third resolution, 1593, was passed early last Friday, after weeks of intensive negotiations. It refers those identified as complicit in war crimes in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. Notwithstanding its opposition in principle to the ICC, the United States abstained on that resolution, as did China, Algeria and Brazil. Eleven nations voted in its favour, led by the United Kingdom, which sponsored the resolution. That resolution was, therefore, historic, because for the first time, the Security Council has made a referral to the ICC, sending out a clear message that there is now no hiding place for those who commit crimes against humanity.

Tony Baldry: I think that the whole House would welcome the passing of Security Council resolution 1593—as the Foreign Secretary says, it is an historic one—but does he agree that the only way that we will stop the killing in Darfur is if the Security Council introduces a chapter VII resolution to give an enhanced mandate to the African Union, increasing its deployment and giving it a peace-enforcing mandate, rather than simply a peace-monitoring mandate?

Jack Straw: I agree with the burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The problem that we faced was to gain nine votes in the Security Council. When it came to resolution 1590, gaining a sufficient consensus for that deployment of troops was very difficult. Throughout, we have had to get other member states of the Security Council to recognise the gravity of the situation and some of them to appreciate that their obligations under the UN charter must take precedence over their immediate commercial or political interests with the Government of Sudan.

Tony Cunningham: I warmly welcome the UK position on this, and I also welcome the United States position on this. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what influence he had over the US making that decision?

Jack Straw: It is for that Administration to answer that, but all I can say is that there was a lengthy, yet constructive, period of negotiation with Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. The US, along with several other countries on the Security Council, including China and Russia, is not a state party to the International Criminal Court—that is on an all-party basis. I am very grateful to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the US Government for their constructive approach and for the fact that they allowed the resolution to go through and thus let the International Criminal Court make an effective start, not withstanding that opposition.

Mark Simmonds: The International Development Select Committee, in its recent excellent report, estimated that up to 300,000 deaths might have occurred in Darfur and that the UK Government should have done more initially with the international community to raise the alarm. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Sudanese Government must be compelled to halt their genocide; that the perpetrators of the appalling crimes must be brought to justice; that a no-fly zone must be enforced over Darfur; that oil and arms sanctions must be imposed and that the African Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, must be authorised to undertake peacekeeping instead of monitoring?

Jack Straw: I refute entirely the suggestion that the British Government did not act quickly enough. Our aid programme is more than twice the level of that which we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. There is one absolute certainty of many: if there were a Conservative Government, aid would be the first casualty of the public spending cuts that they have in store. We have always argued for the toughest possible action in Sudan, but achieving that depends on gaining agreement inside the Security Council.

Mark Simmonds: I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary finds it appropriate to go into party political politics because this important issue concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. Conservative Members accept UN resolutions 1591 and 1593 as a small step forward. We welcome the travel ban and the assets freeze, but that is not enough to stop the genocide. After seven Security Council resolutions, 10 reports to the Security Council, 2 million people being displaced and 300,000 deaths, it is scandalous that the African Union force has less ability to protect civilians than the UN mission in southern Sudan. Why did the UK Government and the UN ambassador not insist at least on that minimum condition?

Jack Straw: What that question shows is how detached the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition are from the way in which the UN operates. We have to gain a consensus, which involves international engagement and even engagement with our European partners to gain the four votes of the EU members of the Security Council. We have been arguing for months for tougher action, but in case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, one or two members of the Security Council with veto powers have been reluctant to achieve that. We have not got to the point that we would wish to get to, but it is infinitely better than where we might have got to—and certainly better than where we would have got under a Conservative Government.

David Winnick: Although I recognise the lead taken by the Government, does my right hon. Friend accept that the failure of the international community as a whole to act on the terrible crimes and atrocities in Darfur reminds one of what happened 11 years ago in Rwanda? Is he further aware that those of us who have seen the film "Hotel Rwanda" are reminded once again how the international community—of course there was a different Government in Britain then—stood aside while some of the most terrifying crimes were committed, which were, in fact, the worst since 1945?

Jack Straw: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. Rwanda was the most appalling example of brazen neglect by the international community, including the United Kingdom at the time. We in this Government have adopted a different approach, but the truth is that there are still members of the so-called international community—member states of the Security Council and others—that are turning a blind eye to clear atrocities that have taken place in Darfur. The United Kingdom has not been one of those countries because we have been at the forefront of not only giving aid to the benighted people of Darfur, but calling for effective international action.

Menzies Campbell: May I welcome the progress that has been made on Darfur and especially the fact that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has been invoked in the way in which the Foreign Secretary described? May I press him a little further on an answer that he has already given? He knows that the African Union committed to provide 3,600 troops and police, but only two thirds of that number have actually been deployed. Two years after the crisis began, with estimates that as many as 300,000 people have been killed, what steps can he take to persuade those in the Security Council who might be otherwise minded of the urgent need to provide a larger force of at least 10,000 with a clear and unequivocal mandate for the protection of civilians, who, not withstanding the welcome progress, remain at grievous risk?

Jack Straw: Resolution 1590 provides for an AU mission of up to 10,000 military personnel. There is agreement to that. The problem is finding the necessary troops and, as its leaders accept, the African Union's capacity is an issue. Our aim is to give the African Union active military and other technical support—some of which is elementary logistical support—so that we can get the available troops into the region and deployed effectively.

Ann McKechin: What action the Government are taking, in conjunction with others, (a) to bring an end to killings in Darfur and (b) to ensure that essential supplies reach the region.

Mark Lazarowicz: What action the Government are taking with the international community to ensure aid supplies reach Darfur.

Chris Mullin: Insecurity remains the biggest obstacle to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur. We continue to insist that the parties stop fighting and abide by their commitments and we have provided significant technical and financial support to the African Union force. The UK is also one of the leading humanitarian donors to the crisis.

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend is aware of the huge development need of all the people of Sudan. However, there is concern about the way in which development aid and debt relief are provided to the current Government, whom many of us do not trust at all. Does he agree that it is imperative that the entire international community, particularly the European Union, agrees a set of clear benchmarks and timetables for the provision of aid to the Government of Sudan and clearly states the consequences if the Government do not comply with the conditions of those grants?

Chris Mullin: I certainly agree. We have made it clear to the Government of Sudan that there is no prospect of, for example, action on debt relief, which they urgently want, until there is a wholly different approach in Darfur. We provide substantial aid and will continue to do so, but much of it goes through the UN agencies and NGOs that are active on the ground, not through the Government of Sudan.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the aid that the UK Government have given, but he must be aware of the indications of the immense impact of the crisis on the region's population. It is suggested that up to 2 million people have left their homes and fields and, according to the most optimistic analysis, at least that number will remain in that position until 2006 and possibly beyond. In those circumstances, what is the likelihood of the Government providing additional aid, especially for the NGOs, and what is the likelihood of the level of contributions being increased at the forthcoming donor conference?

Chris Mullin: We stand ready to increase our aid as needed, but the key issue on the ground is security. The African Union force now numbers about 2,500, including 200 police, and as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned, there are plans to increase it to 10,000 if necessary. The signs are that the force is becoming more effective in protecting civilians, and once security on the ground has been established it will become far easier to get aid to the people who need it. Part of the problem now is not a shortage of aid, but an inability to get the aid that is already available to the people who need it.

Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) referred to the lack of trust in the Sudanese Government. Although one welcomes the improvement of the situation in Darfur, albeit there is still a long way to go, what assessment has been made of the impact of the continuing conflict in Darfur on the peace deal between the south and the north?

Chris Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole international community is extremely anxious to see the comprehensive peace agreement that has been signed between the south and the north succeed. I am glad to say that representatives of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army have now arrived in Khartoum; we think that that will make a difference to the Khartoum Government's approach in Darfur and other parts of the country. We do not want to take our eye off the ball of the north-south peace agreement, because the prize is great. Our view has always been that the settlement reached between the north and the south could form the basis of an eventual settlement in Darfur. It is important to note that the civil war in Sudan between the north and the south was the longest-running civil war in Africa, in which 2 million people died.

John Bercow: As justice delayed is justice denied, I warmly welcome the referral of the war crime suspects to the International Criminal Court, a step for which many of us have long been arguing. I enthusiastically congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his role in bringing about that important achievement. Given, however, that we are all agreed that the priority must be to stop the killing in Darfur now—killing that continues to take place at anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 people a month—would the Minister again accept that there is a distinction between peacekeeping and peace enforcement? What is needed is peace enforcement through a larger African Union force, and a force that is blue-helmeted so that it receives the logistical and financial support that it requires to do its job.

Chris Mullin: I certainly accept that there is a difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. The mandate of the AU force is a matter for the AU, and up to now it has expressed itself satisfied with its mandate, the exercise of which is open to quite wide discretion. It has used force to protect civilians on occasion. In the past couple of months, the UN special representative, Mr. Pronk, has commented increasingly that the AU, as it extends its presence on the ground, is becoming increasingly effective at protecting civilians by a combination of what he describes as "deterrence andmediation". He says that it has "surpassed expectations". The key issue is to get more troops on the ground and there are plans for an eventual deployment of up to 10,000. Indeed, the numbers have increased substantially in the first few months of this year.
	As for resolution 1593, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is far too modest to say that he played a crucial role in obtaining that resolution. I have no doubt that but for his intervention it would not have been obtained.

Kashmir

Simon Hughes: if he will make a statement on Government policy on Kashmir.

Jack Straw: The Government fully support the ongoing composite dialogue between India and Pakistan, which includes the issue of Kashmir.
	We warmly welcome the progress made over the last 18 months, including the ceasefire over the line of control and, among other things, the agreement to run a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, scheduled to start in two days' time. We continue to urge both countries to seek a just and lasting resolution to their dispute that takes into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I commend his interest in the subject. Indeed, we were in the region at the same time. Can I have an assurance that when he was in India he made clear to the Government of India that any violations of human rights of the people in Kashmir would be unacceptable, and always has been unacceptable, and that proper remedies are required? Will he assure me that this outgoing Administration will leave with a clear message by repeating the final point in his main response: that the only solution that will be satisfactory for the people of Kashmir is one that they agree is satisfactory and where they determine their own future?

Jack Straw: Yes, I did discuss the issue of human rights in Kashmir when I was last in India, which was in February, at about the same time that I went to Pakistan. We always raise the issue. Some limited progress has been made on that front, which I welcome. We shall continue to maintain the pressure. The fact that there is now a Congress-led Government is important in this respect because they realise that there is a human rights deficit in respect of Jammu and Kashmir. As for Kashmir generally, I commend what the hon. Gentleman said recently:
	"What is needed in Kashmir is a broad based peace process, in which all the communities of the province feel that they have a part to play and have their voices heard."
	That is our position too.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will recognise that this problem has gone on for 57 and a half years too long. The answer that he has just given was very encouraging, and we all welcome the positive signs that progress is now being made. He will also recognise, however, that there is still some way to go before the problem is solved. Will he ensure that this country gives the necessary support and encouragement to India and Pakistan in this regard? I agree with the final part of his first answer, in which he said that if there is to be justice for the people on both sides in Kashmir, a solution must be found that is acceptable to the people of Kashmir as well as to those of India and Pakistan.

Jack Straw: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. As this is probably the last exchange that he and I will enjoy in the Chamber, may I wish him well in his retirement? He is a close neighbour and a good friend of mine, as well as an active and fine parliamentarian.
	It is perfectly plain that there cannot be justice or a solution to the terrible problem in Kashmir without a solution that enjoys the consent of all the peoples on either side of the line of control, and that is something that we shall continue to press for. We shall also continue with our active engagement. It was the British and American Governments who played a very active part in persuading India and Pakistan just over three years ago that their mobilisation to war—they were right on the brink of war at that time—would have done nothing for the people of Kashmir and would have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on either side of the line of control. Since then, we have actively supported the composite dialogue.

Khalid Mahmood: I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on all his hard work to ensure that Pakistan and India came together to engage in this dialogue. Does he agree, however, that he need take no lessons from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on this matter? We have an all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, but not one Liberal Democrat Member has turned up to any of its meetings to discuss any of these issues—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are not matters for the Minister.

Tyrannical Regimes

Graham Allen: What progress has been made in implementing the proposals on international law and tyrannical regimes put forward by the UN's high level panel in November 2004.

Bill Rammell: We continue to work actively with the United Nations on improving collective action against tyrannical regimes. The high level panel and Kofi Annan's report, "In Larger Freedom", offer bold ideas for reform. These proposals will enable the UN to deal with the challenges that it faces, including the international community's collective responsibility to act against regimes that are unwilling or unable to protect the fundamental human rights of their people.

Graham Allen: I congratulate the Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the priority that they have given to the work of the high level panel. This involves the big picture and the long-term perspective, but unless the United Nations has teeth, and the willingness to use them, nations on the Security Council and outside it will always be tempted to act unilaterally. Will my hon. Friend therefore ensure that the United Nations extends its willingness to take action to protect the human rights of the citizens of the nations of the world, and will he redouble his efforts to ensure that the UN eventually gets the teeth to make our international peace more secure?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his interest in this issue; I think that this is the third time that he has raised it in Foreign Office questions. As many hon. Members have already said, the most damning indictment of the international community and the United Nations was the failure to act in Rwanda in 1994. If we can grasp the opportunity presented by the high level panel's report and the Secretary-General's response to it, we shall be in a better position to prevent similar situations from occurring. That is why we must strongly support the proposals.

Donald Anderson: What can be done about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? The panel has pointed out the crisis of credibility, and the problems relating to membership and to the blocking of serious discussion of the major transgressors of human rights. The panel also made various recommendations. What are the prospects of their being carried forward?

Bill Rammell: There is a genuine problem with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I have spoken at meetings of that body three years in a row and it is a deeply problematic organisation. One aspect of the high level panel report that did not come up to scratch was its recommendations on that commission. In that regard, the Secretary-General's proposals, especially for a human rights council, are well worth exploring. We want that to happen.

Ukraine

Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on Ukraine's progress towards fulfilling its action plan with NATO.

Denis MacShane: Following the election of President Yushchenko, European and NATO partners have stepped up dialogues with Ukraine. I held talks with President Yushchenko last week in Kiev. Through the annual target plan, Ukraine is moving towards NATO standards.

Peter Viggers: Will the Minister join me in sending good wishes to the people of Ukraine as they move closer to accountable democracy, including political control of the military? Will he also comment on press reports that the previous Kuchma regime sold Cruise missiles to other nations, including Iran? Is the Yushchenko Government co-operating fully in having the matter thoroughly investigated? What impact will that information have on our discussions with Iran?

Denis MacShane: I fully support the hon. Gentleman's first point. I encourage hon. Members to visit Ukraine, which, after the Orange revolution, is moving forward towards a European future as a strong democracy, and we must be there with the Ukrainian people.
	I have raised directly with Ukrainian Government officials and the Foreign Minister exactly the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred of illegal sales of what they described as defunct Cruise missiles to Iran and China. They promised a full investigation and co-operation with us and other NATO Governments in finding out what went on.

Iran

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the progress of the EU negotiations with Iran about Iran's nuclear programme.

Jack Straw: Representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the EU High Representative, the European Commission and the Luxembourg EU presidency met an Iranian delegation in Paris on 23 March. The meeting was the latest in a series launched by the Paris agreement of 15 November 2004. All sides remain committed to agreeing long-term arrangements, as envisaged in the Paris agreement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. However, bearing in mind the Government's use of intelligence over Iraq, how can we trust their assessment of Iran's weapons of mass destruction?

Jack Straw: We have made no published assessment based on intelligence about Iran and we have no plans to do so. The international community is concerned about Iran not because we have seen incontrovertible evidence that it has a nuclear weapons programme, but because of what is plainly on the record in the reports of the director general and the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency—namely, that Iran, over a period that goes back 20 years, has failed to comply with its safeguard agreements to give notice to the IAEA of all areas in which it was pursuing dual-use nuclear programmes. That is the basis on which we, in the so-called E3, have been taking forward the negotiations. I hope and believe that they are tough and will produce an acceptable solution.

Tam Dalyell: We should acknowledge the great personal effort that the Foreign Secretary has put into our relations with Iran by going to Tehran, but, to be fair to the Iranians, is not it also true that they have suspended all nuclear activity over the past 18 months? Is it not the case that, on 23 March, Condoleezza Rice put forward some pretty positive ideas? Are they acceptable to the British Government? Do the Government stand by the commitment that there will be no military action against Iran? Is there some divergence from the French over attitudes to Iran in that they are more favourable towards having more positive relations than perhaps we are?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend asks me several questions. First, if I may, I should like to pay tribute to him because it is his last Foreign and Commonwealth Office Question Time and probably his last three days as a Member of this House after 42 years, including the past four years as Father of the House. My hon. Friend has been a good friend to me. He is a great parliamentarian, who will be remembered for his commitment to Parliament. He provides a fine example, which all should follow, whatever position they hold. I commend his work in Parliament and wish him well for the future.
	I shall take my hon. Friend's questions in reverse order. He asked whether there was any divergence between us and France; there is not. Some have long suggested that there is such a divergence of view. The disappointment for some in Iran and some in the United States is that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have clearly kept together.
	On military action, I have made it clear beyond peradventure that we can conceive of no circumstances in which military action against Iran would be justified. I cannot be clearer than that—[Interruption.] Do not forget what?

John Bercow: Do not forget the word "gravamen".

Jack Straw: On the issue of the offers made by Condoleezza Rice on 23 March, we welcome those and they are a product of the negotiations. The real importance of the announcements made by the United States Government on 23 March was that they had moved from a position of some detachment about the E3 process to one of active support. Some of the things that we want to give to the Iranians we can only give to them if the US also does so. That is what we have now got, with the United States commendably agreeing not to block Iran's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation and to provide Iran with much-needed aircraft spares.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that while many of us criticise the Government for many things, a lot of us would like to pay tribute to him for his enormous efforts to maintain co-operation with Iran on the difficult nuclear issue? Does he accept that real progress is now being made, with access to all the appropriate centres at which such activities take place? Will he carry on with the good work, which is helping to maintain a situation that is desperately important for stability in the middle east?

Jack Straw: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who has taken such an interest in this issue over many years. It has helped me, and us, to know that there is wide support for our efforts to secure a peaceful solution to Iran's problems. Iran is not the easiest country with which to negotiate. It has made progress, however, and has suspended its reprocessing and uranium enrichment activities, which is of great importance in order to ensure, as provided by the Paris agreement, that there are objective guarantees that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme. Although I am clear that negotiations will continue to be difficult, I look forward to their satisfactory conclusion.

Graham Brady: First, may I associate the Conservative Benches with the Foreign Secretary's tribute to the Father of the House, and also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) who is also retiring shortly? Is it not the case that the United States' support for the negotiations was only won following the pledge that in the event of failure, the UK and the EU would support a reference to the Security Council? What is the deadline for progress to be seen to be taking place before a referral will be supported?

Jack Straw: I apologise for the fact that I omitted to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor). As an Essex lad, it always seemed slightly improbable to me that he, coming from the west coast of Scotland, should have taken to the rather raucous people whom I know and love in Southend, but he has done so, and they have to him. It has been a wonderful relationship. He, too, is a great parliamentarian.
	There has been no change of approach by the E3. What was on the table right from the start of discussions between Joska Fischer, Dominique de Villepin, the then Foreign Minister of France, and me in June 2003 was that the default setting would be that we would join with other partners in referring Iran's clear breach of its safeguards agreement to the Security Council. That has always been in reserve, and it has been the means by which we have encouraged Iran to come to the negotiating table. Some active discussions took place on 1 March between the three European Foreign Ministers and Condoleezza Rice in private, and those discussions led, I believe, to the movement by the United States.
	We have no specific time scale, and cannot set a specific one. I hope that the moment does not arise, but if and when it does, we shall all be clear that it has arrived.

Simon Wiesenthal Centre

Mohammad Sarwar: What assistance he is giving to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to bring suspected Holocaust perpetrators to justice.

Denis MacShane: The Government believe strongly that all war criminals should be brought to justice whenever possible, and we support the aim of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to do that. I am sure that the whole House will share my pleasure that the Queen last year awarded an honorary knighthood to Sir Simon Wiesenthal as Britain's tribute to his contribution to righting the wrongs of the great evils of the Nazi era, which must never be forgotten.

Mohammad Sarwar: I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he accept that the international community must take the final opportunity to deliver justice to the victims of the holocaust, and bring to account those who committed acts of genocide?

Denis MacShane: Very much so. In January, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre launched what it called Operation Last Chance, a campaign in eight countries to identify suspected Nazi war criminals and bring them to justice. It has the Government's full support.

Middle East

Ernie Ross: If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

Jack Straw: Securing peace in the middle east through the implementation of the road map, leading to the establishment of a viable independent state of Palestine alongside a secure state of Israel, is a top priority for this Government. The London meeting that we hosted on 1 March was a successful example of our commitment to working with the international community and the parties concerned to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Ernie Ross: I thank my right hon. Friend and wish him every success in the ongoing dialogue that will be required. May I remind him, however, that while we recognise that the core of the middle east problem is the Israel-Palestine question, if there is to be peace in the middle east, Israel must live in peace with all its neighbours? People in Israel—Israeli Jews, Israeli Christians, Israeli Muslims—need to feel that they are living in a democratic state that recognises their rights as well. May I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to press, in the months ahead, to ensure that there is a comprehensive peace plan so that all peoples in the middle east can live in peace together?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend and I entered the House on the same day in 1979. He, too, has been a very fine parliamentarian, but he has also been extremely active—indeed, I can think of no one more active—on the issue of peace in the middle east and justice for the Palestinian people, as well as security for the Israelis. He has been Chairman of our party's foreign affairs committee for many years, and I am extremely grateful to him for supporting it. I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in his retirement.
	I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that after years of frustration, not least for him personally, he can now see some light in the middle east. The prospects are better than they have been at any time in the past four years, and the London meeting called by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and attended by representatives of the Palestinian Authority, many Arab leaders and members of the Security Council set out tangible steps that we in the international community are taking better to support the creation of that Palestinian state.

James Clappison: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is clearly in everyone's interests in the middle east today—in the interests of both the security of Israel and the settlement of the problems from the Palestinian point of view—for all possible support to be given to the moderate Palestinian leadership that has emerged? Does he also agree that one way of doing that is to give more material support, particularly for economic development of the infrastructure of the Palestinian people, and that more careful account should be taken of the way in which such aid has been used than has been taken in the past?

Jack Straw: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. There have been defects, to say the least, in the way in which aid has been used in the past. That has changed in the past two years under Mr. Fayyad, the Finance Minister: indeed, it is now changing rapidly.
	One of the many good things to emerge from the meeting on 1 March was a clear international commitment—and the involvement of the World Bank—to achieving precisely what the hon. Gentleman seeks and what is wanted in the Palestinian area, namely, an active programme of economic reconstruction.

Meg Munn: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Israeli Government on the progress made so far on the implementation of the Gaza withdrawal plan and on beginning the handover of Palestinian towns? What more can the Government do to support the Palestinian leadership in dealing with the terrorism sponsored by external agents?

Jack Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend put on the record her support for the action taken by the Israeli Government, because the truth is that Prime Minister Sharon and his Government and the majority in the Knesset have shown enormous courage in the decisions that they have taken to secure long-term peace and a degree of stability never enjoyed before in the whole of the region. On support for the Palestinians as the Gaza withdrawal takes place, we are giving the Palestinians active support in rebuilding their security forces, reforming their political institutions and reconstructing their economy.

NATO Meeting (Vilnius)

George Foulkes: What issues will be discussed at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Vilnius.

Denis MacShane: NATO Foreign Ministers will discuss enhancing political dialogue in NATO and current operations, particularly those in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The NATO-Russia Council will focus on enhancing political dialogue and practical co-operation.

George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that when I attended the headquarters of NATO with a Western European Union delegation recently, it took a somewhat mischievous question from me—

David Winnick: Most unusual!

George Foulkes: Yes, most unusual, as my hon. Friend says.
	It took a somewhat mischievous question from me to elicit a clear and robust explanation of NATO's developing role, which I got from the British ambassador, rather than from the Secretary-General. Will the Minister—or whichever Minister is going to Vilnius—make it clear to the Secretary-General that we expect him to be a robust and clear defender of NATO's new role and particularly of the transatlantic link, including Canada as well as the United States?

Desmond Swayne: Put him in the House of Lords.

Denis MacShane: In my right hon. Friend's perhaps final contribution, he shows just how much the House will miss him. But he is a very young man and a great Scot, so perhaps there is a role for him in international activity; and—who knows?—perhaps the post of Secretary-General of NATO might fall vacant. I will certainly vote for him.
	The NATO alliance remains the guarantor of our collective defence, a key forum for transatlantic consultations and security, and an effective vehicle for crisis management, as we have seen in the Balkans and Afghanistan. It is also central to the development of stability and security beyond its borders, through partnerships in the middle east and central Asia. That is why I find it so distressing that the leader of the Conservative party is as unwelcome in Washington as he is unwanted in Europe. I hope that the people of Britain deliver a verdict on the Tories' cynical policy. In fact, the one party committed to NATO—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still two days to go.

Chechnya

Ann Clwyd: If he will discuss the situation in Chechnya with the Russian authorities.

Bill Rammell: The Government remain concerned about the situation in Chechnya. Ministers and officials, including the Secretary of State, frequently discuss our concerns with the Russian authorities and will carry on doing so. The Government will continue to work with the Russian authorities to identify further opportunities to support social and economic development in Chechnya and in the wider north Caucasus region.

Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend will doubtless have read the latest Human Rights Watch report on Chechnya, which is extremely worrying. It shows that disappearances in that country are continuing and that, in the view of the HRW, they constitute a crime against humanity. Will he point out to the Russian ambassador that in 2002, the all-party group on human rights sent a delegation to Russia, backed by the Foreign Office, to ask about Chechnya, and that we met a high-level Russian group and were invited to visit Chechnya? That invitation has not been followed up, despite requests on our part. Will my hon. Friend ensure when he next meets the Russian ambassador that that invitation is honoured?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There are genuine concerns in Chechnya about disappearances and abductions, and we do press these issues very strongly. We have been encouraged by recent indications that Russia is willing to collaborate with other states to improve the situation in Chechnya. It wants to work with them to bring positive improvements to the region, and we should respond in that regard.
	In specific response to my hon. Friend's question about the all-party group, there are some genuine security concerns within Chechnya that would make such a visit exceedingly difficult at the moment. Nevertheless, I shall ensure in my discussions with the Russian ambassador that my hon. Friend's commitment and enthusiasm is communicated to him so that he can correspond directly with her.

Arms Sales (China)

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the EU embargo on arms sales to China.

Bill Rammell: The arms embargo review announced by the December 2003 European Council is ongoing. In December 2004, the European Council concluded that any decision regarding embargo lift should not result in an increase of arms exports from EU member states to China. We continue to work with our partners on that issue. We recognise that the political environment has become more difficult in the light of the passing of the anti-secession law in China on 14 March. We are consulting widely and taking all relevant factors into account.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply. What is the point of lifting the embargo if it is not going to increase arms sales, and what is the point of having an embargo when the Foreign Office is committed to an ethical foreign policy?

Bill Rammell: It is clear that the vast bulk of arms sales blocked by the embargo would have been blocked by the EU code of conduct on arms sales. That is the element that provides us with protection and reassurance. Nevertheless, there is a debate across the EU about the issues and questions involved. I believe that it is important to take time to deal with those issues properly, so the process will take as long as it takes.

Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, is it not important to take note of the Amnesty International report today, which makes it clear that the death penalty is still very much alive in many parts of the world, particularly in China? Nearly half of all the death penalty executions last year occurred in China. Should we not also take human rights issues in China into account?

Bill Rammell: We take strong account of the human rights situation in China. Indeed, we have a twice-yearly human rights dialogue with China and one of the key issues that we consistently raise is the widespread resort to the death penalty. As my hon. Friend is aware, the death penalty applies, though we oppose it, in many parts of the world. We need to take the opportunity to put forward our concerns on human rights, but the process will take, as I said, as long as it takes for all the EU concerns to be addressed.

Mark Simmonds: There is a strong and growing alliance against lifting the EU embargo. All the informed regional players—the United States, Japan, Australia, Russia and South Korea—are, for regional security reasons, all against lifting the ban.
	In the context of China's anti-secession legislation, which talks about using non-peaceful means against Taiwan, is it not time that the UK Government stopped vacillating and that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary took a principled stance on this issue?

Bill Rammell: I seem to recall that the arms embargo was put in place in response to the events in Tiananmen square and that the first Government to visit Beijing after that event was the previous Conservative Government.
	Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns. As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, he recognises that the political environment has become more difficult in the light of the passing of the anti-secession law in China on 14 March. Nevertheless, China is a major strategic partner in the international community and the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether it is right to put China in the same basket as Burma and Zimbabwe. We do not believe that it is, and we are protected by the EU code of conduct. There are questions and concerns across the EU and we must deal with them effectively. As I said, that process will take as long as it takes.

Croatia

Wayne David: What progress is being made with Croatia's application to join the EU.

Denis MacShane: The European Council of December last year agreed to open accession negotiations with Croatia on 17 March 2005, provided that there was full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. On 16 March, EU Foreign Ministers concluded that the conditions for opening negotiations had not been met and postponed their opening. We hope that the Croatians will meet those requirements as soon as possible.

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I am pleased that the Government are taking a strong line on this matter. Many of us agree wholeheartedly that the apprehension of war criminals is of the greatest importance. Will he pursue that policy well into the future?

Denis MacShane: When I was appointed four years ago, my first visit was to Zagreb, when I urged full co-operation with ICTY in respect of a gentleman called Gotovina. After serving in the French Foreign Legion, he was reported to have popped up in Guatemala and Argentina in the years of dictatorship in those countries, before returning to his native Croatia. He is wanted on very serious charges. I appeal to him to report to The Hague so that the barrier to Croatia starting negotiations for EU membership can be lifted. That membership is a policy goal that the Government fully support.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Michael Jack.

Zimbabwe

Michael Jack: What assessment his Department has made of the fairness of the Zimbabwe general election.

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet his EU counterparts to discuss the recent election campaign in Zimbabwe.

Gregory Barker: If he will make a statement on the recent election in Zimbabwe.

Jack Straw: As the House is aware, elections were held in Zimbabwe last Thursday, 31 March. The declared results give ZANU-PF 78 seats, the Movement for Democratic Change 41, and Independent one. With 30 further seats being by appointment, the gift of the president, the declared result will give ZANU-PF the two-thirds majority required for amending the Zimbabwe constitution.
	Those are the official published results, but there is strong evidence that they do not reflect the free democratic will of the Zimbabwean people. There was, it is true, less violence than in 2000 and 2002 but, overall, the election process was seriously flawed. Thousands were turned away from the polling booths. There are serious unexplained discrepancies between the votes tallied and the official number announced, and other abuse was rife. That included the misuse of food aid, ghost voters, a lack of equal access to the media, the use of draconian security legislation, and an election commission packed with ZANU-PF supporters.
	If Mr. Mugabe had had nothing to hide over the conduct of these elections, he would have allowed full access by the international media and experienced external election observers. Yet the BBC and others were banned, Commonwealth and EU monitors were refused access and, most revealing of all, even observers from the experienced and respected Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum were banned—presumably to punish them for their critical report in 2002.
	The recent official report by the Commission for Africa rightly set out the need for stronger action by the international community to address Africa's problems. However, the commission also made it crystal clear how much bad governance has "blighted"—its word, not mine—parts of Africa, and frustrated people's hopes of building for themselves a better and more prosperous future. There is, tragically, no more powerful example of that than the situation in Zimbabwe.
	Given all of that, I am surprised and saddened that Zimbabwe's neighbours have chosen to ignore the obvious and serious flaws in these elections, and have declared them fair. However, many in southern Africa have spoken out about the reality of the situation in Zimbabwe. Just two months ago, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Zimbabwe was a
	"huge blot on the record"
	of the world's poorest continent. Moreover, the deputy president of the Confederation of South African Trades Unions. Mr. Joe Nkosi, complained that free and fair elections could not occur "under current legislation". Confederation delegations have been banned from Zimbabwe for their stand.
	The UK will continue to work with its international partners for a return to accountable, democratic government that respects the rule of law and the human rights of Zimbabweans.
	The EU's common position on Zimbabwe is the strongest on any country in Africa, and includes targeted sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe and an arms embargo. Meanwhile, the UK is committed to doing all that it can to help to meet the humanitarian needs of the Zimbabwean population. The UK has made a major contribution to ensuring that Zimbabwe's food shortages do not lead to a famine by donating over £71 million in food aid since September 2001. We have also contributed £26.5 million to efforts by non-governmental organisations to tackle the AIDS epidemic now affecting one in four Zimbabweans.
	A strong statement about the elections was issued last night by the EU presidency. That statement concluded that the elections could not be judged free or fair, and called on Zimbabwe to restore democracy. International measures taken show the widespread condemnation of President Mugabe's ruinous policies. Until Mr. Mugabe and his regime respond, that regime will continue to be isolated internationally.

Michael Jack: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that comprehensive statement, which shows what a falsehood the elections were. What steps can be taken to stop the President of South Africa, in particular, seemingly being in denial of the fact that the elections were totally unfair? On humanitarian aid, what further steps can be taken to stop people in Zimbabwe being exploited by a sudden rise in the cost of just about everything they need for their everyday lives?

Jack Straw: On the position of the South African Government, they must make their own decisions. South Africa is a neighbour and the largest and most significant country in the whole of southern Africa. It, like Botswana and all the other adjoining countries, has suffered grievously as a result of the ruinous policies practised by President Mugabe, including the flight of hundreds of thousands of refugees from Zimbabwe, particularly to the countries in the south. We have a different view and a different analysis of what has happened in Zimbabwe from that taken by the South African Government. I regret that we have a different view, but I happen to believe that our view is based on the best evidence available.
	As to aid, we have throughout the period of difficulty following the policies of President Mugabe made it crystal clear that we will continue to stand by the people of Zimbabwe, who have been the victims of President Mugabe's ruinous policies. We have already put in very large amounts of aid, and we shall continue to do so.

Henry Bellingham: The election was a total insult to democracy. In some districts, dead people were on the electoral roll, whereas thousands of people who wanted to register could not do so. Furthermore, in some of the seats in which the MDC is now challenging the result, more votes were counted than were cast. The Foreign Secretary mentions South Africa. Cannot pressure be put on South Africa by the EU and the US to take a much stronger stance?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about flaws. I understand that even those who were allowed to observe the elections because they were thought to be more sympathetic to Mugabe have commented that at least 10 per cent. of those who tried to cast a vote were prevented from doing so. Independent observers suggest that 30 per cent. of people who tried to cast a vote were prevented from doing so. Meanwhile, there was much stuffing of the ballot boxes, use of the votes of ghost voters and so on.
	It is a matter of fact and of great regret to everybody in the House that, as I said, we take a different view from the South African Government. The EU shares our view. The way forward is to continue to maintain a close dialogue with the Government of South Africa. I am certain of one thing. I cannot say how long President Mugabe will stay, but I know for certain that he lacks any effective consent of the people. Beneath an apparently strong veneer, his Government are weak and fragile and will collapse sooner rather than later. The responsibility for rebuilding the Government of Zimbabwe will fall on everybody in the international community, not least South Africa.

Gregory Barker: Sadly, as in so much else, the Government are all talk and no action when it comes to Zimbabwe. Is that not well illustrated by the fact that they signally failed to get Zimbabwe on to the agenda of the recent EU summit?

Jack Straw: The reason that Zimbabwe was not on the agenda of the EU summit was that it had been on the agenda of the Foreign Ministers who met a week before, and we had unanimously agreed a position which was followed through last night, after the elections. The hon. Gentleman wishes to mix it. His party's policy is detachment from the European Union. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the deputy Leader of the Conservative party and shadow Foreign Secretary, is unaccountably absent today. He is apparently in the west of England, scared to death about the Liberal Democrat challenge, even in Devizes. He has made it clear that he does not want a common foreign and security policy and has said that it is absurd. Without the common foreign and security policy and our engagement inside the European Union there would have been no common policy on Zimbabwe, no sanctions against it and no arms embargo—[Interruption.] Somebody said from a sedentary position, "What is the difference?" The difference is that we would have been on our own and would have played into Mugabe's hands. He has long suggested that the dispute is a bilateral one between us and Zimbabwe. It is not. It is an international scandal for which he is responsible.

Bruce George: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that domestic and international observers are the key to democratic elections? What discussions has he had with the Home Secretary to ensure a change in the law that prohibits international and domestic observers at British elections? Will he allow international observers to come to this country with freedom of access to all polling stations? Perhaps he would consider sending them to the midlands where they would be greatly appreciated.

Jack Straw: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. However, as far as I am aware, anyone can come to this country and observe elections. I have no evidence whatever to suggest that we would not welcome observers, and they are present in any event.

Graham Brady: I can understand why the Foreign Secretary chose to deal with Zimbabwe in that way rather than with a full statement. If one issue highlights the total failure of the Government's foreign policy, it is Zimbabwe. The electoral fraud did not spring up suddenly. Mugabe has been preparing the way for years. He has put in place the Public Order and Security Act and the infamous Non-governmental Organisations Bill under the gaze of the international community which stood by and watched. Is not Mugabe's victory proof that the EU's sanctions were too weak?
	Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House where that fraud leaves the Prime Minister's Commission for Africa? Good governance is a prerequisite for progress. With so many African countries endorsing the electoral process as free and fair, has the commission not fallen at the first hurdle?
	Is not the Foreign Secretary ashamed that the Government have failed to give effective leadership to the international community in Zimbabwe? After eight years of talk, is it not time for a Government who will act to restore freedom and security to the people of Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman was unable to see the grimaces of wiser and more experienced colleagues behind him. The House knows that it is absurd to try to imply that any party in this House is responsible for Mugabe's outrages.
	I understand the frustration felt by everyone in the House and around the world about President Mugabe, but in the absence of military action—neither we nor the Conservatives have ever countenanced that and it has never been on the agenda—there are understandable limits to the action that can be taken. The hon. Gentleman invites us to look into the crystal ball to see what might happen to policy on Zimbabwe if the Conservatives came to power, but we might as well examine the book to see what happened when they were last in power. Far from standing up against Robert Mugabe, who was then and still is in power, and calling for international sanctions, they did two things; they closed their eyes to appalling atrocities in Matabeleland and gave Robert Mugabe a knighthood.

Malcolm Savidge: Many of us who are utterly revolted at the way in which Mugabe has engineered the election and damaged Zimbabwe and its people consider that, in view of the cynical way in which he sought to exploit Britain's former colonial status during the election, our Government have been wise to seek to work in concert with the international community, including Zimbabwe's neighbours. Will we continue to encourage those neighbours to put far more pressure on Mugabe?

Jack Straw: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend because I know that that was probably one of his last interventions in the House, at least for the time being, and we wish him well.
	Yes, we will continue to apply all the pressure we can and to engage in dialogue with our friends in southern Africa about why it is in their interests as well as ours for them to take a tougher line on Zimbabwe. In respect of the future of the Africa Commission, the current situation in Zimbabwe shows not that the commission's report is stillborn, but the urgency of implementing its recommendations.

Nicholas Winterton: I do not think that a single Member of the House of Commons does not believe that Mr. Mugabe is destroying one of the most prosperous countries in central southern Africa. May I make a plea that the House remains united in its opposition to Mr. Mugabe so that we and other international bodies can bring about his downfall and a change towards a democratic African system in that wonderful country? Can we pray for the people in their hour of need and hope that Pius Ncube will not be forced to repeat his request to people to go out on to the streets, which may be one way to bring Mr. Mugabe down?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman has been consistent and courageous in his position on Zimbabwe. I entirely agree about the need for an all-party consensus, which I believe exists. I hope that his Front-Bench team accept the reproach to their attitude that he has just administered.

Kate Hoey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his robust statement, which the whole House will genuinely welcome. Does he share my concern that one member of the Africa Commission, the President of Tanzania, recently said:
	"I don't see Zimbabwe as illustrating bad governance. I don't buy it."
	That strikes me as worrying.
	Does the Foreign Secretary further agree that the key to the future will be South Africa and the role of President Mbeki? Will he ensure, when this country chairs the G8 and African leaders, including President Mbeki, come to Gleneagles, that Zimbabwe is made an issue of principle? We must begin to accept that President Mbeki is not a Mandela.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), has been consistent in her approach on Zimbabwe, and I commend her for that. As I have explained, and as the House is well aware, it is a fact that the Government of South Africa take a different position from that of the whole European Union, the United States and many others in the international community. It is currently taking a different stand from that of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who yesterday said, in very measured terms, that he was
	"concerned that the electoral process had not countered the sense of disadvantage felt by the opposition political parties who consider the conditions were unfair."
	He went on in a similar vein.
	We have good relations with South Africa. If there is ever to be any solution to the issue of Zimbabwe, we have to maintain and build those relations so that we can strengthen dialogue, which is what the Prime Minister, myself, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and many others are doing all the time. In the end, I believe that those countries that neighbour Zimbabwe will be forced by the pressure of events to recognise the reality going on underneath their noses.

Patrick Cormack: Bearing it in mind that there is truly a consensus in this House and that South Africa has such a crucial role to play, will the Foreign Secretary invite the admirable and much-admired South African high commissioner to see him later today and tell her just how strongly people in all parts of the House feel about the appalling tyranny in Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: If that is the will of the House, I shall certainly invite the high commissioner in. It may not be this afternoon, but it will be before Parliament dissolves.

Graham Brady: He is going off to Blackburn.

Jack Straw: No, I am not.

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for explaining the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I have given careful consideration to that information, and I think that, on balance, he would have been better off here, but only just.
	In a country with 50 per cent. unemployment, with 120 per cent. inflation and with 25 per cent. of its population affected by HIV/AIDS, just how revealing does the Foreign Secretary think it was when Mr. Mugabe thanked the people of Zimbabwe for having voted, in his words, "correctly"?

Jack Straw: That one adverb spoke volumes, because there was huge intimidation of voters. It is true that there was less violence than in 2000 or 2002, but let us be clear that the state-controlled media, everybody in ZANU-PF and that apparatus, the police and the army—all the security forces—were all saying that if people voted for the Movement for Democratic Change, they were both cowards and traitors. Being a traitor in Zimbabwe is not just being damned in words; it means losing one's livelihood and, often, being locked up. The level of intimidation was intense, in addition to, as we now know, there being high levels of fraud.

Angus Robertson: The Foreign Secretary will appreciate that I am no fan of colonial or neo-colonial policies anywhere. Does he agree that the European Union has an essential role to play here? What enhanced measures is the EU considering? After all, that would help to combat false accusations from Zimbabwe that international concerns come only from past colonial masters.

Jack Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, may I just say that, these days, nobody in this House has any interest in neo-colonialism? Our past is our past, and Africa's past is its past. No one here is directly responsible for that, and we have to deal with that aspect of the past. What we have shown in respect of every other country that is a former British colony is our ability to develop good relations with those countries—across Africa, across Asia and across the whole Indian subcontinent—building on the best of our shared experience and disposing of the worst. It is tragic that in Zimbabwe President Mugabe has repeatedly used as an excuse for his own ruination of a once fine and wonderfully prosperous country his suggestion that the reason for everything that he has done, in an independent, sovereign state, is our neo-colonial aspirations. It is nonsense; it remains nonsense, and we will continue, with our European partners, to work on ways to increase the pressure on Mugabe.

Business of the House

Peter Hain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a business   statement. Following the Prime Minister's announcement earlier today, business for tomorrow will now be as follows:
	Wednesday 6 April—Consideration of a business of the House motion to facilitate business for prorogation, followed by all stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill followed by formal proceedings on the Appropriation Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Inquiries Bill [Lords], followed by consideration in Committee and Third Reading of the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords], followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Public Service Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords Amendments.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
	Thursday 7 April—Consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Education Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve the carry-over of the Crossrail Bill, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by all stages of the International Organisations Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords Amendments.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received, and if necessary:
	Friday 8 April—The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
	The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to all Acts.
	The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
	Parliament will be dissolved on Monday 11 April by proclamation.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and his courtesy in letting me have early sight of it. Conservative Members are pleased that this surprise election has been announced. We are prepared to be constructive in discussions about the Bills currently before Parliament, but does he not agree that there are many Bills that have not completed their normal passage, and indeed some have not been debated at all? The Government have also lost a day for reasons that we all understand and agree with. So, Bills will be lost. Will the Leader of the House confirm that his statement does not affect questions or Adjournment debates, which will go ahead as before?

Peter Hain: May I say how grateful I am for the response of the shadow Leader of the House? We are working together through the usual channels to try to bring about the normal orderly conclusion of business in these circumstances. Questions will continue, including questions to the Prime Minister tomorrow, and Adjournment debates will continue. However, in Westminster Hall on Thursday there will be no private Member's debates, although they will happen on Wednesday—tomorrow.
	May I say for the record that if, the discussions that have been conducted with the Opposition through the usual channels, which have been constructive, reach the expected conclusion, we will have secured Royal Assent for 16 Bills, more than half the programme of Bills announced in the Queen's Speech? That will be a considerable achievement.

Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House confirm that however constructive our discussions over the next few days—I am sure that my colleagues in both Houses will be constructive—the Government do not have to dissolve the House for another 15 months, five years after the date of the last general election? In those circumstances do the Government really believe that this is the right way to conduct the business of the House? If there is so much vital business still to be scrutinised by Parliament, why does it have to be dissolved so early? Does the Leader of the House recall that the Prime Minister himself said, in an earlier manifesto:
	"We will introduce as a general rule a fixed parliamentary term"?
	Does he appreciate that although I might, as a result, have to delay my retirement, there is still a good case for a longer Parliament?

Peter Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was making a plea to enhance his pension. I am sure that the House agrees with me that he has had many distinguished years here and that he will be sorely missed. I wish him a very happy retirement, but I cannot help him on any of the other points.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I inform the House that questions should be limited to the subject put forward by the Leader of the House today?

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend consider carrying over for consideration tomorrow the Mental Capacity Bill, which is due to be considered this afternoon but not for another six hours, so that the House may be fully satisfied that, by accepting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), the assurance to the Archbishop of Cardiff which the Government gave the last time the Bill was considered will be totally and fully fulfilled, and those of us who are to be asked to vote with the Government in the next few days will be able to do so, rather than feeling that we need more assurances?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend puts the point very fairly and sensitively. We are seeking to move ahead in the way that he describes. It is our objective to get Royal Assent, if we can, but it may not be achievable because of the sensitivities involved; we will just have to do our best.

Michael Spicer: What time will the House be dissolved on Monday?

Peter Hain: That is a matter for Her Majesty because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is done by royal proclamation. The normal dissolution arrangements will apply in the normal fashion, and the precedents established for when the House dissolves will apply as normal.

Tom Levitt: I am delighted that the Disability Discrimination Bill is scheduled for tomorrow, so it will be completed. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the measure will go through intact, thereby fulfilling Labour's commitment to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people during this Parliament?

Peter Hain: I very much hope so. I share my hon. Friend's objectives. The Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation of this Parliament, to give extra rights to people with disabilities. I hope that all Opposition parties will be in constructive mode in giving the Government every opportunity to get the legislation on to the statute book, and that it will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

Edward Leigh: What will happen to the private Members' Bills scheduled for debate on Friday? I am promoting one such Bill, to remove discrimination against Catholics under the Act of Settlement and other Acts, and was confident that the Government would facilitate progress on the measure. What do they now intend to do about that and other Bills, and will the Leader of the House, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, join the Leader of the Opposition in saying that he will seriously consider removing the last piece of religious discrimination in our constitution?

Peter Hain: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that there will be no private Members' Bills on Friday, but there is simply no opportunity to take them forward. Other Members whose Bills are making progress will also be disappointed, but I am afraid that is a consequence of the choices that always have to be made in the run-up to a general election.

Andrew Miller: Why has the Road Safety Bill been left out of my right hon. Friend's list? Over which aspects of saving lives on roads was it not possible to reach agreement with Opposition parties?

Peter Hain: The Opposition said that there was insufficient time for the proper scrutiny that they demanded, so it has not been possible to make progress on that Bill—which I regret, because it is a vital life-saving measure on which we should have been able to achieve Royal Assent.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the business on the Order Paper today remains as stated? If it does, what is the point? We have a Second Reading on a Bill that cannot go forward, and a programme motion saying that some of the proceedings on it must finish by 21 April.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, having been here—

Andrew Robathan: Answer.

Peter Hain: I am trying to answer. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has been a Member much longer than me and is a much more distinguished parliamentarian than me—[Interruption.] I happily give him that; there are probably many others.

Eric Forth: It is not difficult.

Peter Hain: The former shadow Leader of the House, in his normal charitable fashion, says that it is not difficult. I will buy him a pint afterwards.
	As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire knows, these are the normal circumstances in which a business statement is made before Prorogation.

Paul Farrelly: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Consumer Credit Bill commanded cross-party support in this place. In his negotiations with Opposition parties, may I prevail on him to allow the Bill to complete its parliamentary passage so that constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, north Staffordshire and across the country will no longer be victimised by loan sharks?

Peter Hain: That is another Bill on which we should very much like to have achieved early Royal Assent, so that it could go on to the statute book, for the very reasons noted by my hon. Friend: loan sharks are a scourge across the country and we wanted to deal with them through the Bill. Unfortunately, the Opposition say that there is no proper time to scrutinise it, so we shall not make the progress that we wanted.

Pete Wishart: In terms of outstanding business, motion 32 on the Order Paper, on the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to the war against Iraq, is still outstanding. There will obviously be no opportunity to discuss the motion before the end of this Parliament, but does the Leader of the House agree that the opportunity of getting the Prime Minister bang to rights over the illegal war in Iraq could be significantly easier in the next Parliament?

Peter Hain: That argument has been rerun again, again and again. The hon. Gentleman knows that that impeachment motion was never going anywhere, and that it was a device for him and his colleagues to make the point that they have made repeatedly, like an old gramophone record. That answers his point very fully.

Rachel Squire: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will still be an Adjournment debate on Thursday on defence in the UK?

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but I am advised that that debate will not happen.

Eric Forth: Will we still be Members of Parliament on Monday 11 April, and will the Leader of the House guarantee that any legislation that remains to be completed will have an opportunity to be considered and scrutinised properly, and that there will be no undignified shovelling through of legislation—even if the Front Benchers have agreed it among themselves?

Peter Hain: If the right hon. Gentleman still held the same position as he did when I came into this job, he would have been on the Front Bench, negotiating in exactly the same way as his successor. The answer to his question is that Members will cease to be Members after Dissolution when it takes place on Monday.

Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend clarify something that will, I suspect, cause much disappointment to many of my Muslim constituents? Is it the case that we could lose the provisions on incitement to religious hatred, and can he explain why?

Peter Hain: I very much regret that it looks as though we shall lose the opportunity to introduce the new offence of incitement to religious hatred that would have given particular comfort to the Muslim community. However, the Opposition made it absolutely clear that they were not willing to see that particular clause of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill go into law, so they bear full responsibility for blocking it. I am sure that Muslim communities throughout Britain will take careful note of that, and of the position of the Liberal Democrats on the matter.

John Taylor: Will the Leader of the House, even at this eleventh hour, cause his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House exactly what is going on in China concerning MG Rover, which has massive implications in the midlands for the work force of MG Rover and the supply chain? This is a matter of great anxiety, which should be resolved before the election.

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest. He knows that the Secretary of State will answer questions on Thursday, when he will have a chance, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, to put any question he wishes, with his customary vigour and effective representation.

Clive Betts: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he and his colleagues have done everything possible to try to secure the passage of the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill relating to religious hatred? The issue is of vital importance to Muslims in our communities. They feel marginalised and threatened at present, and look to the House to say that they are an important and integral part of our society. We should do everything possible to defend them from those heinous crimes. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what the Opposition parties gave as their reasons for refusing to co-operate on this matter?

Peter Hain: The Opposition parties—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—will have to speak for themselves, but I find it very disappointing that they have failed to support the Muslim community, who have constantly asked for that protection, and who alone are isolated in being prevented from getting that necessary protection. I hope that note will be taken of that across the country. I am afraid that it has not been possible to reach agreement—although if there is a change of heart in the next few hours there may be a reversal on that point. I certainly hope so.

Tim Boswell: As the Pensions Act 2004 will come into force tomorrow, will the Leader of the House assure us that any affirmative resolutions required to operate it, and indeed other legislation currently coming into force, will be in place? No less importantly, can he assure the House that where assurances have been given in Committee about proper consideration under negative resolution procedures, there will be some opportunity of ventilating outstanding concerns about those important and sometimes vital technical issues?

Peter Hain: It is certainly our intention to meet the objectives that the hon. Gentleman describes, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will give careful consideration to what he has said, because I will draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Chris Bryant: Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), may I urge my right hon. Friend to take up the cudgels again on behalf of the Consumer Credit Bill—something that not only is urgently needed in many of the communities represented by hon. Members, but was debated fully in Committee? Indeed, we set aside eight sittings for debate, but we only used four of them. So it seems clear not only that there is unanimity on the proposals, but that the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumers and Postal Services, who ably led the Bill through the House, managed to give satisfactory answers to all the queries raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would be good to see that legislation in place.

Peter Hain: I very much agree. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the Minister whom he mentioned, who is sitting almost next to me, will confirm, the Bill completed all its stages in the House of Commons but got bogged down in the House of Lords. That is the reason why there is an inability to make progress with the Bill. I very much regret that such progress cannot be made, and all hon. Members' constituents will regret that as well. After we win the next general election, we will have to return to this matter and ensure that a consumer credit Bill is introduced.
	I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House to say, with permission, that Parliament will be summoned to meet on 11 May, when the first business will be the election of the Speaker and the swearing in of Members, and that the State Opening will take place on Tuesday 17 May.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the election timetable is entirely in the Prime Minister's gift, and that only three years and 10 months of a possible five-year electoral cycle have gone by, so if any Bill or part of a Bill does not get through, it is entirely the Government's fault?

Peter Hain: In one sense the hon. Gentleman is right, but in another sense, all Prime Ministers are in this position. Indeed, I think that he will find that Mrs. Thatcher was in a pretty similar position in 1983 and 1987. These are the normal circumstances in which Dissolution is sought, and the Prime Minister has the right to seek it.

Chris Grayling: Has the Leader of the House made any provision for the consideration of secondary legislation between now and Dissolution? I ask that particularly in the light of this morning's European Court judgment, as the Court's provisional decision was to overturn the food supplements directive. Will he make provision between now and Dissolution to suspend the regulations that apply in this country for the duration of the election campaign, given the issues that the industry faces as we speak?

Peter Hain: Obviously, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will give this matter close consideration in view of the Court's decision and will act accordingly, but I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Julian Lewis: The Leader of the House has been kind enough in the past to acknowledge the work that I have tried to do to reach out to the Muslim community. Will he therefore, on reflection, withdraw the remarks that he made earlier? Plenty of Conservative Members, and possibly even Labour Members, believe that there are many good reasons not to support the incitement to religious hatred provisions. Those reasons have nothing to do with hostility to the Muslim community, but rather with the concern that under the terms of that ill-considered, although well-intentioned legislation, any charlatan or exploiter who chose to define his activities as a religion would be able to prevent anyone from criticising him.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I was not suggesting in any way that he—or any other hon. Member—was seeking to turn his back on the Muslim community. [Hon. Members: "Yes, you were."] What I was saying was that the Muslim community—in particular its most respected voice, the Muslim Council of Britain—wants that legislation and that offence to exist, to give Muslims the extra protection that they do not enjoy at the moment. They are virtually alone as a group in not enjoying that protection. The hon. Gentleman, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats must confront the fact that they are denying the Muslim community's representatives the opportunity to get the protection for which they have asked, and which we as a Government are still willing to deliver if the Opposition will co-operate.

Postal Voting

Nick Raynsford: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the judgment in respect of the allegations of postal voting fraud in the Birmingham wards of Bordesley Green and Aston, which was announced yesterday. The judge declared both elections void.
	May I apologise to both Opposition spokesman for the fact that I was unable to let them have early sight of the statement? I hope that they will understand that I have returned, post haste, from a train taking me north, so that I can make this statement. That is why it was not possible to have the statement prepared earlier.
	We unreservedly condemn the abuses of postal voting in Birmingham. With a general election having been announced today, we are taking further steps to reinforce the safeguards against any potential fraud, and we are determined that the fraud in those cases in Birmingham will not undermine public confidence in the electoral system.
	Hon. Members will be aware that there are tough penalties already in place for electoral fraud: on conviction, those found guilty are liable to up to two years in prison and an unlimited fine, as well as disqualification from voting and standing for office. In general, the electoral system in the UK has been secure and commanded public confidence. We have no history of widespread electoral fraud. In fact, evidence suggests that it is rare. Since 1998, there have been only four recorded prosecutions for electoral fraud.
	Contrary to suggestions that have been made, the Government are not complacent. Our top priority is to safeguard the integrity of the ballot, and to ensure that the system stays safe and secure we have put in place the following measures. The Electoral Commission has already published, on 29 March, a code of conduct for political parties, candidates and canvassers on the handling of postal vote applications and postal ballot papers. We expect all political parties and candidates to confirm their commitment to that code. We will pursue new initiatives with the police to ensure that offenders are brought to justice. I have spoken this morning to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has confirmed that he will discuss the issue with the Association of Chief Police Officers tomorrow.
	Following the judgment, we have now written to all returning officers to stress the importance of taking counter-measures against electoral fraud. The Electoral Commission, together with ACPO, will shortly publish guidance specifically for returning officers and local police forces on fraud prevention and investigation. It is vital that all organisations work together to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
	To back those efforts, we have provided additional funding for the forthcoming general election above that given in 2001. About £10 million of that extra money will support the administration of the elections. That will help to support returning officers in dealing with additional requests for postal votes and putting in place measures that maintain the integrity of the electoral process.
	As the Birmingham cases have related very specifically to postal voting, it is important to put in context the full implication of postal voting opportunities in the UK. Postal voting has been available in one form or another since 1918, initially for service personnel. It was subsequently extended to cover those physically incapable of going in person to the poll and those who were absent because of their occupation, change of address or holiday. Five years ago, the Representation of the People Act 2000 extended the option of postal voting, following the recommendation of the all-party working party on electoral procedures. The system whereby anyone can apply for a postal vote has been in place since that date, and the proportion of people taking advantage has increased substantially.
	At the 2001 general election, the number of postal votes almost doubled on the 1997 election to approximately 4 per cent. In the 2002 local elections, 7.7 per cent. of the electorate had postal votes. At the 2004 European and local elections, outside the four all-postal regions, approximately 8.3 per cent. of the electorate had postal votes. That trend reflects the popularity and convenience of voting by post, something which has also been evidenced in the series of all-postal voting pilots conducted in local authority elections since the year 2000.
	Postal voting provides an easy and accessible way for many people to participate in the democratic process. People should have the right to a postal vote if that is what they want. Having said that, it is essential to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, and we are taking the measures that I have outlined to ensure that. The Electoral Commission, which has rejected any question of withdrawing postal ballots, has also recommended in its report "Voting for change" a number of measures to improve security. The Government published their response to that report in December 2004, and accepted the large majority of the recommendations. We will put those measures into statute when parliamentary time allows.
	The commission's chief executive said this morning:
	"There is enough awareness of the risks. Enough steps are being taken to make sure that postal voting at the moment can be run successfully."
	The Government share that view. We are determined that the election that we are about to have will be secure and fair.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Minister for his statement, but am sorry that he felt that making a statement was a late decision. Surely it was obvious, given the judge's remarks, that a statement was required. Although we are all in favour of encouraging voting, surely that should not be at the expense of encouraging fraud in elections.
	The findings of the judge in the Birmingham case highlight extensive abuse of the current system. Does the Minister agree with the judge that this was not
	"the work of a few hothead activists working behind the backs of the candidates and their party . . . but . . . part of a Birmingham wide campaign by the Labour party to try, by the use of bogus postal votes, to counter the adverse effect of the Iraq war"?
	If so, what action will the Prime Minister take against those who so damaged the integrity of the system?
	Does the Minister see the need for further guidelines to be issued in respect of Birmingham to ensure fair play with postal votes? Will the Government actually follow the advice of the Electoral Commission this time, because on previous occasions they have failed to accept the recommendations of the commission that they set up? Almost a year ago, individuals from across the political divide, including some from the Labour party, called for a Government rethink on the new system of postal votes. Why did that not happen?
	The judge went on to say that the Government's statement—the Minister repeated it today—that
	"The systems already in place to deal with allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working"
	was complacent and surprising to
	"Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic".
	He went on to say that the Government were not only complacent, but in denial.
	Is the Minister seriously saying that the Government have only just become aware of the risks of electoral fraud in the new system? In February 2004, a journalist using an anagram of "bogus voter" as his name managed to register on 31 electoral registers in a few hours, and to obtain nine votes in just one constituency. In the compulsory all-postal ballots for the European elections, there were numerous allegations of irregularities, and in September last year, the Electoral Commission came out against the future use of all-postal ballots. Why did the Government simply ignore that advice?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe), who is retiring after 22 years of excellent service to the House, her constituents and the country, pointed out in an Adjournment debate—held, presciently, on 5 May last year—the weaknesses of the current electoral registers. Does the Minister not understand that we do not want to end up in this country with a Florida-style stand-off in the courts because the Government have failed to protect our electoral system?
	The Electoral Commission, the official Opposition and others on both sides of the House have pointed out that we need the protection that individual voter registration—as used in Northern Ireland—would give, but the Government have done nothing. We have called for an end to mass postal voting from a single address without proper checks, yet the Government have done nothing. While we have been talking about protections for postal voting, the Government have been insisting on going yet further with e-voting, text voting and the like. Is it not time that they returned to the real world?
	When Labour was first elected, the Minister will recall that it pledged to
	"restore trust in Government and the political process".
	Is not the truth that it cannot be trusted, and that Britain does not need another five years of being let down by Labour?

Nick Raynsford: I do not accept the main points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Oliver Heald: The judge made them.

Nick Raynsford: I shall come on to those points in a moment.
	This was not a question of the Government being slow to make a statement, but a question of which Minister should make it. I was not expecting to do so, which was why I came back from a visit elsewhere to make the statement, and was not able to give the hon. Gentleman an advance copy, for which I apologised.
	I do not accept the judge's claim that there was a Birmingham-wide campaign by the Labour party. I have read the transcript of the case carefully, and the evidence relates to two wards in Birmingham. I have made it clear that we have no hesitation in unreservedly condemning the malpractice in those two wards, but that is different from concluding, without supporting evidence, that there was a city-wide conspiracy, as has been implied.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether further guidelines are being issued. I made it clear in my statement that further guidelines will be prepared, and will apply everywhere in the country, not just Birmingham.
	The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not always accept the advice of the Electoral Commission. Let me remind him that in response to the summer 2003 electoral pilots, the commission recommended—this was less than two years ago—that we should move to all-postal ballots as a norm in all local government elections. Had we accepted that recommendation, the hon. Gentleman would be criticising us for having done so. It is inevitable that from time to time the Government have to differ if they believe that a recommendation has not been fully thought through. In that case, the Electoral Commission, which has subsequently changed its position, would accept that its original recommendation was not right. It is not the case that we should be bound always to accept such recommendations—but overwhelmingly, we listen to the commission and support its work.
	As for the judge's comments, may I specifically focus on the allegation that the Government were guilty
	"not simply of complacency but of denial"?
	That was made on the basis of a statement from the Department for Constitutional Affairs that the judge cited, which said:
	"There are no proposals to change the rules governing election procedures for the next election, including those for postal voting. The systems already in place to deal with allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working."
	That statement appeared in The Times, but in the same passage of the newspaper, it continued with the following sentence, which, curiously, did not appear in the judgment:
	"However, we are not being complacent about this issue and are planning to introduce a number of further safeguards into the electoral process to combat any possible fraud."
	That is what was on the record, and I have to say that it makes for a rather different interpretation—

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the statement. Points of order can be made after the statement.

Nick Raynsford: That sentence casts a somewhat different light on the particular observation. In terms of the weakness—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has had the courtesy to come to the House to make a statement. It is only fair that he be listened to, and there should be no heckling of him.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	On the system of electoral registration, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) andother hon. Members will know that the recommendation for individual registration was made by the Electoral Commission. In our response, we made it clear that we were sympathetic to that principle, but that there were fundamental difficulties. The experience in Northern Ireland, where individual registration has been introduced, was that the total number of people on the register fell by about 10 per cent. Real fears have been expressed, not least by the Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning, Local Government and the Regions, which have examined the matter carefully, that moving towards individual registration could result in the register becoming less comprehensive and accurate. We thus indicated to the commission that we intended to proceed with the objective of individual identification in a way that we hoped would mitigate the adverse consequences to which I referred.
	The idea that we should now abandon all pilots of other voting methods, such as electronic voting, is an unwise proposition, given the clear evidence of interest in them on the part of many sections of the population that do not necessarily participate to the extent that hon. Members of all parties would like. It is our commitment to continue to explore pilots that will test the ability of different systems of voting to enable people to vote with absolute security. The integrity of the voting system is fundamental, which is why pilots are conducted. They are carried out to test whether they work. If there is evidence that they lead to a substantial increase in turnout without associated fraud, which was the evidence from the overwhelming majority of electoral pilots, it is obviously sensible to use that evidence. It is our commitment to continue to work to assist people to vote by means that are safe but convenient, and, as I have already stressed, to ensure that we maintain the integrity of the ballot as our top priority.

Andrew Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. May I make it clear to him that the good news coming out of Birmingham is that the people who tried to cheat got caught? We must emphasise that. Lots of crimes are relatively easy for people to commit, but the crucial thing is that they get caught.
	Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that during the general election it is essential that electoral registration officers seek out anyone attempting to break the law and make sure that such people are prosecuted, so that we can establish the integrity of our electoral system? In the long term, however, will he introduce a system of individual registration and data matching with other organisations, so that the register comprises 100 per cent. of the people who are entitled to vote?

Nick Raynsford: I very much agree that every step should be taken to ensure that those who are guilty of attempting to pervert electoral processes are apprehended and brought to justice. I also agree that it is a satisfactory outcome that the malpractices in Birmingham were identified and action was taken against them. As I said earlier, I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's view of the benefits of moving towards individual registration, albeit without the potential adverse consequences that the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which he chairs, identified in the course of its thoughtful report on the issue. That is very much our objective. A letter from me and the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), has been issued to all returning officers highlighting the importance of their putting measures in place and making use of the additional funding that we have made available to them to ensure that any additional demand for postal voting is processed in a way that safeguards the integrity of the ballot.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Edward Davey.

Edward Davey: It is good to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House today and accept his assurances regarding his inability to provide the written statement to Opposition spokesmen beforehand. It is not his usual practice and we accept his apology.
	The right hon. Gentleman cannot brush aside the judge's ruling yesterday. Is he not prepared to accept the judgment of Sir Richard Mawrey QC, in an historic ruling, that the postal voting system introduced by the Labour Government is
	"an open invitation to fraud"?
	Does the Minister not realise that the judge's statement that the Government are complacent refers to potential fraud during the coming general election? That was the point. Does he realise that on the day the general election is called, his main concern should be not the embarrassment of the Labour party, but his duty to the   British people to protect the legitimacy of the democratic process? How can he hope to restore trust in politics when voters cannot have trust in the postal voting system that the present Government devised?
	When an election commissioner describes Britain's postal voting system as "hopelessly insecure", will the Minister really dismiss that judgment? The case was one of "massive, systematic and organised" electoral fraud. Today, rather than give excuses or fail to take responsibility, why do the Government not undertake to do far more than he has announced? Thanks to the Government's foot-dragging, it is too late for primary legislation to implement the Electoral Commission's recommendations, but there are things that can be done so that in the coming weeks we can restore confidence in our democratic system.
	Why does the Minister not try to build a cross-party consensus on the emergency measures needed to protect the coming election from fraud? Why does he not, for example, ask the Electoral Commission to produce plans to monitor closely the operation of the postal voting system during the election? Why cannot Parliament ask the commission to undertake an information campaign to ensure that voters know how best to protect their postal votes from theft? Is it really not possible in the time left to this Parliament to pass orders to implement more protections for the forthcoming ballot? Why can we not legislate by statutory instrument to ensure that postal votes are counted separately, making it easier to identify fraud?
	Why can we not allow parties to check postal vote application forms after the election? Why can we not extend the period for petitioning against an election result to two months, so that such checks can be made? Why can we not enable presiding election officers at polling stations to draw up a list of people who turn up to vote in person and are surprised to be told that they have had a postal vote issued, and allow such voters to submit a tendered pink ballot paper instead, in case the postal vote is not used or is found to have been stolen?
	I wish that we had not reached this point of crisis. Time and again, the Liberal Democrats warned about the shortcomings of the Government's postal voting system. Now, the Labour Government have one last chance to stop fraud and to prevent a general election result from becoming tainted. If Ministers do not act, the stench of this shoddy affair might be the one issue that drives them from office.

Nick Raynsford: Several of the hon. Gentleman's proposed measures were highlighted by the Electoral Commission in its report "Voting for change", which the Government have accepted, and we shall introduce those measures. Although some depend on legislation, which is not possible this side of the general election, we are committed to introducing legislation that gives effect to the commission's recommendations. Some of the measures are administrative, and I made it clear in my statement and previous answers that we are taking steps. We have written to returning officers and are in contact with the Electoral Commission. In my statement, I noted that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission said only this morning that
	"there is enough . . . awareness of the risks, enough steps are being taken . . . to make sure that the postal voting at the moment can be run successfully".
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that steps are, rightly, being taken to protect the integrity of the poll. It is in everyone's interests that all political parties sign up to the code that the commission has circulated and to the good practice measures that returning officers will put in place to ensure that the poll proceeds with confidence, as we all want it to.

Stephen McCabe: I am sure that I speak for all my Birmingham Labour parliamentary colleagues when I utterly condemn the disgraceful and fraudulent behaviour in two wards in Birmingham. I welcome the safeguards that my right hon. Friend has announced today—[Hon. Members: "What safeguards?"]—and the future safeguards that he has also announced.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would indeed be a sad day for democracy and for all the parties represented in this House if one of the effects of misleading statements about the case were to frighten elderly, sick or disabled people out of exercising their legal right to have a postal ballot in the forthcoming election? Should we not bear that in mind when we talk about what happened in two out of 41 wards in Birmingham?

Nick Raynsford: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend in condemning the malpractice that occurred in two wards in Birmingham. I also agree that it would be most unfortunate if misleading and, in some cases, slightly exaggerated statements made on the basis of those two cases led people who might otherwise not vote to fail to apply for the postal vote for which they have a right to apply.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister confirm that there is no evidence that such practices took place only in two wards? The information is not available. Will he also confirm that the Government have brought in a system for postal votes in which registrations to vote by overseas service personnel are far lower than in the past and registrations of overseas voters are even lower, and that what has driven the Government and the Labour party is their own self-interest, not democracy's?

Nick Raynsford: No, I wholeheartedly reject that unwarranted comment. It is slightly odd to assume that malpractice has occurred if one cannot find evidence that it has not. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and by me is that there is evidence of fraud in two wards in Birmingham, which we condemn unreservedly; it was wrong and improper. However, in our view, it is not to correct to infer from that the whole electoral system is tainted, either in Birmingham as a whole or throughout the country.
	We are discussing individual cases. As I said in my statement, a few cases requiring prosecution arose in the previous seven years. By international comparisons, such an incidence does not imply a serious problem, but we are not complacent. We are well aware of the concerns that have been voiced and we are taking practical steps to ensure both that people can continue to enjoy the benefits of postal voting, which has made it possible for many people who would otherwise be unable to do so to exercise their democratic rights, and that there are proper safeguards against the type of fraud that took place in Birmingham.

David Winnick: It would be unfortunate if people who want to use their postal vote legally were unable to do so, but does my right hon. Friend agree that this deplorable case raises genuine concerns about the operation of postal voting? Is it not essential that an incoming Government take the measures necessary to safeguard the integrity of the voting system—first and foremost, the postal voting system—so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that we live in a democracy in which people's votes are counted in the proper way, as we all want?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is vital that there be confidence in the integrity of the voting system. Measures, including legislation, should be taken after the general election to implement some of the safeguards which, to an increasing extent, are identified as appropriate.
	This is where the issue of individual registration is so important. If we had proceeded immediately with individual registration, as the Electoral Commission recommended, without thinking about some of the potential downsides, we could well have been presented with an electoral register, as in Northern Ireland, 10 per cent. below the previous level. That in turn would have led to major criticisms about disfranchising people who should be entitled to vote. It is important to have the safeguard through individual identifiers, which are necessary to enable verification and checking, and to ensure that that is done in a way that does not deter those who should be on the register and who are entitled to be on the register to register. This is an extremely important issue about preserving the integrity of the entire voting system but at the same time ensuring that those people who are entitled to vote are not excluded from the register.

Alan Beith: What assurance can the Minister give us that in the realities of the election electoral staff will have the opportunity to deal with fraud? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that when a large number of postal vote applications come pouring in, a very small staff will not have time to check whether they are coming in multiples and whether they have had previous applications from the same address? What support and additional help can be given to ensure that the staff have the opportunity that they need to check against fraud, and that presiding officers at polling stations have some powers that they can use to deal with a person who discovers that somebody else has voted for him?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes an absolutely fair and valid point. As I made clear in my statement, we have provided an additional £10 million to support administration. I have written, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), to all returning officers throughout the country to highlight the importance of measures being in place and the importance of liaison with the police. I also referred in my statement to discussions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be having with the Association of Chief Police Officers tomorrow on this very issue. Measures are being taken specifically to ensure that fears, suspicions and allegations of malpractice are carefully examined and that procedures are in place to deal with such problems.

Gordon Prentice: I believe in voting in secret at a polling station wherever possible. That may sound quaint and old-fashioned, but that is my position.
	Local authorities can decide for themselves how many polling stations there are and where these stations are located. Is there not a case for the Government to issue advice to local authorities encouraging them to have polling stations in as many places as possible throughout every constituency in the land?

Nick Raynsford: As my hon. Friend will know, a great deal of advice has already been given over the years to returning officers on such matters. It is right that they should continue to look at these issues. My hon. Friend must be aware that there are an increasing number of people for whom the requirement to vote in person at a particular polling station is impossible because of their physical condition or because of their job, or because of other factors, or because it is not part of their lifestyle today. People do not necessarily work in the area in which they live. They may have children in another area. They may have responsibilities that take them away at times when it would be convenient to vote. Such people may find it more convenient to vote by post. That convenience is the reason why there has been a significant increase over recent years since the all-party group recommended that we should move to postal voting on demand. That is why the take-up has been consistently increasing.
	I do not believe that we can simply ignore the convenience of the public, providing—this is an important proviso—that there are in place appropriate safeguards to guard against malpractice.

Patrick Cormack: Could the right hon. Gentleman do two things? First, recognising that the judiciary can be criticised only on a substantive motion, would he withdraw the remarks that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the shadow Leader of the House? Secondly, will he ask all electoral registration officers to check the validity of those who appear to have applied for postal votes by writing to them?

Nick Raynsford: My only comments on the judgment related to two particular instances where inferences were made. There was one particular inference about the Government's position. Secondly, there was a particular inference about the extent of fraud throughout Birmingham. In my view neither of those inferences was supported by evidence. The quotation from The Times to which I referred made it clear that the Government were not in any way complacent and were intending to introduce measures to deal with the very issues that the judge highlighted. There was the wider implication that there was widespread fraud throughout Birmingham, for which evidence was not provided. I stand by my two comments.
	As for advice to returning officers, we have made it clear in the letter that my hon. Friend and I have written that we expect them to be taking measures to ensure that they are satisfied that postal votes are operating on a proper basis. It is not our view that we should instruct in detail exactly how they should exercise that function. They have their own responsibilities as returning officers. It is important that they should seek to ensure the integrity of the ballot and should take the measures that they regard as appropriate to check anything that they regard as potentially fraudulent.

Richard Burden: I echo the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), that every Labour Member for Birmingham condemns completely and utterly the wrongdoing in two Birmingham wards. I add my welcome to the Labour party for suspending the individuals concerned, for implementing a disciplinary procedure and for guarding against any allegation that there is any complacency by dispatching to Birmingham a senior member of the National Executive Committee to oversee future campaigning.
	So that there should be no complacency in any part of the House, I invite other political parties to take equally seriously the issue of postal voting and the organisation that sometimes goes on around postal voting.
	Finally, while it is right that we should consider tightening the regulations, I support the idea of individual registration. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the objective should be to encourage legitimate engagement with the democratic process and not to discourage it?

Nick Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend that, first, we unreservedly condemn the malpractice that has been found in Birmingham. I also agree that it is incumbent on all political parties to do their utmost to ensure that all their candidates and supporters act in an entirely proper and scrupulous way in the forthcoming election. It is in everyone's interest that we ensure that the ballots that will take place on 5 May are conducted in a way that maintains public confidence.

Peter Luff: Is the Minister aware that there is a certain grim satisfaction on the Opposition Benches that although the entire British democratic process has been tarnished by what happened in Birmingham, the principal short-term victim of the Government's ill-judged dash to favour postal voting is the Labour party itself, particularly in Birmingham—"As you sow, so shall you reap"?
	May I refer the Minister to the wise words of the Birmingham Post editorial this morning, which read:
	"If emergency action is not taken to change the system in time for the General Election—insisting on postal votes being checked and counted separately at the very least—the Government will leave itself open to the allegation that it is reluctant to act because its real intention is to deliver corrupt votes to Labour MPs."?

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to try to inject a party political note in that way. I remind him of a letter that has been sent out to many people in the country. It says:
	"In the run-up to the next General Election . . . I need your help. There are three things you can do: Step 1 Apply for a postal vote today. Everyone is now entitled to vote by post without having to give a reason."
	The letter continues:
	"We've enclosed two forms. If one is blank, please pass it on to another supporter. If you need any more, please phone"—
	a number is given—
	"or go to www.conservatives" etc.
	It is a bit rich for the Conservative party, which is clearly seeking to extend postal voting to the greatest possible degree, to condemn the Government for acting on an all-party recommendation to make postal voting available on demand. We did that. We have said repeatedly that it is right that there should be safeguards. There is a whiff of hypocrisy about criticism of the Government from those who are clearly themselves seeking to maximise the number of postal votes.

Kevin Barron: Further to that point, will my right hon. Friend consider issuing further guidelines on the encouragement of multiple applications? I have here a letter that was sent to me by a constituent. It had been sent out in the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and it states:
	"I am sending you a form to make it easier for you to register for a postal vote. I also enclose a spare form for you to pass on to another member of your family or a friend."
	If we are going to get this right, the sending round of postal vote applications in this way should be stopped. We need to clean up this act, so as to prevent the despicable attempts at fraud that occur on occasions through the use of postal votes.

Nick Raynsford: I have to say to my right hon. Friend that it is right that we should continue to make postal voting available to those people who find the facility convenient and who might not be able to exercise their democratic right without it. I take issue only with those who condemn the Government for making postal voting available but who are themselves engaged in encouraging exactly that process.

Roger Gale: The Minister's criticism of the judge would seem to imply that the Government are still in denial. The Minister has said several times that he and the Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs had written to returning officers asking them to exercise their powers. The Minister is well aware, however, that anyone resident in the United Kingdom can place their name on the electoral register and vote, and that the multiple system that gives people permission to vote in local government elections, European elections and parliamentary elections means that there are people on the register who can quite properly vote in one election but might not be allowed to vote in another. There is no control whatever over that. The Minister has sought to place the blame everywhere except where it lies, namely, with his own Department. He has written to returning officers and told them to act. What action does he propose that they take?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening to my statement, in which I outlined a number of measures that we have taken, including making substantial additional financial provision to enable the administration of the whole process to be conducted more efficiently. I should like to quote from the letter that I have written to the returning officers:
	"The Electoral Commission, together with ACPO and ACPO Scotland, will also shortly publish guidance to returning officers and local police forces on fraud prevention and investigation. If you have not already done so, you should make immediate contact with your local police force in preparation for the forthcoming elections. It is vital that all organisations work together to protect the integrity of the electoral process."
	I have mentioned the discussion that I had with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in which he said that he would talk to ACPO about this issue tomorrow. The Government are acting; we are playing our part and we are encouraging returning officers to do their best. It is right that all parties should work together to ensure that people can continue to benefit from the opportunity of being able to vote by post if it is not convenient for them to vote in person. At the same time, however, we must maintain the integrity of the ballot.

Si�n Simon: My constituency sits cheek by jowl with the two wards in which these disgraceful acts took place. I would like some reassurance from the Minister on three important points. First, will he reassure the 12 Labour councillors in my constituency, who are people of honour and integritymainly women, in factand who work hard for the local community? They were elected in clean elections following clean campaigns, and they are decent people doing a good job. Will the Minister reassure them that their reputations, their integrity and their ability to hold their heads up in our community will not be sullied by this judgment, whose suggestion that the corruption was city wide went beyond its remit and beyond the available evidence? Such a reassurance from the Minister would be very welcome in those quarters.
	Secondly, will the Minister reassure my constituents from ethnic minority communities that this problem is not confined to any one community, and that it is not about race, as some parties would have us believe? This is a problem of people breaking the law and doing bad things, and in Birmingham, those people have been caught, tried and found guilty. This is not a race issue

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has got the message.

Nick Raynsford: I would say to my hon. Friend that the vast majority of local councillors act with great integrity and propriety, and it is quite wrong that they should feel threatened or stigmatised as a result of the malpractice of a small number of people who have clearly behaved in a deplorable way. That distinction is very important, and I hope that I made clear my views on that earlier. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. It would also be quite inappropriate to draw any conclusions about race from these incidents. It is right to condemn malpractice, whoever is responsible for it. We must maintain our vigilance and be absolutely rigorous in making it clear that such malpractice is unacceptable. There are no exceptions to that; it applies to everyone in this country, whatever their background.

David Curry: Is it not entirely possible that a significant number of seats in the House will be won in the forthcoming election by a majority that is smaller than the number of postal votes available in the constituency? Is it not also the case that, according to the rules under which the election will take place, votes will be treated as an electoral commodity? Is it not essential that votes should be individual and secret? That is at the heart of our representative democracy.
	Will the Minister also try not to be too deluded by Northern Ireland? Is it not more important that everyone who votes should be entitled to do so, rather than bending the rules so that some people who cannot be bothered to register should be encouraged to do so?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman will know from the figures that I gave the House earlier that, at the last general election, approximately 4 per cent. of the electorate were entitled to postal votes. A number of hon. Members were elected with a majority of less than 4 per cent. It is inevitable that the possibility of that happening should exist. The vast majority of people use their postal vote entirely properly, and the important thing is that action should be taken to ensure that the integrity of the postal voting system continues. It is right that the vote should be individual and secret, and it is important that measures should be in place to protect that in respect of postal voting. The guidance that the Electoral Commission has issued recentlywhich all parties have seen in advance and which I hope they will all be fully committed towill help us to achieve that objective.
	On Northern Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the issue of individual registration relates to whether some members of the community would bother to register if the onus were on them to do so. We all have experience of families in which, if the mother or father did not put their youngsters' names on the register, the youngsters might not bother to do it for themselves. We are seeking to ensure that the register is as comprehensive and full as possible, and that no one is left out accidentally. In the course of an election, we all encounter people who complain that they would have liked to vote but were not on the register. We should not, therefore, go too quickly down a route that might increase the number of people who are excluded from the register, without carefully considering how to move towards individual identification of electors while avoiding the potential downsides that the Select Committeewhich looked very carefully at this issueidentified.

Ann Cryer: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has come to the House with this statement today. I am also pleasedalthough I do not want to be vindictivethat the full weight of the law is to be brought to bear on those people in Birmingham who have committed electoral fraud. This might deter certain persons in my constituency who were scurrying round harvesting ballot papers last May. Those people were from all three major parties. They were not candidates, agents or members of any party, but they were supporters of the three main candidates. I hope that the actions of the criminal justice system in Birmingham will deter such activity in Keighley in the forthcoming general election. I received numerous complaints from my constituents last year, and the same sort of thing also happened in two of the Bradford constituencies. As yet, no criminal proceedings have been brought against any of the people involved, and it is sad that certain people in those constituencies were not prepared to stand up and be counted in the criminal courts.

Nick Raynsford: I share my hon. Friend's concern about malpractice. All political parties have a common interest in acting to stamp it out. It is right that the full force of the law should apply when malpractice has occurred and we are keen that there should be a clear understanding between returning officers and the police about effective action to deal with allegations of malpractice. That is essential if the message is to go out loud and clear from the Houseas it shouldthat malpractice, the abuse of postal voting or any other electoral fraud is unacceptable and unreservedly condemned by all parties.

Bernard Jenkin: Since the right hon. Gentleman and I first began debating postal voting last year, his responses to The Times campaignwhich should be commendedand to criticisms by the Liberal Democrats and Labour Back Benchers have consistently been characterised by complacency about a system that the judge described as
	farcical . . . hopelessly insecure . . . contains no effective safeguards and is an invitation to fraud.
	A code of conduct is not law and carries no legal sanction or penalty. The Government are guilty of playing fast and loose with our democratic system and it will redound to the right hon. Gentleman's eternal discredit that he let down the voters of this country.

Nick Raynsford: I do not accept that, because we have always made it clear that our objective was to facilitate the opportunity for people to exercise their democratic rights by voting. It is a cause of concern to us all if people are prevented from exercising their right to vote because they cannot get to the polling station. It is right that they should have the opportunity to vote. If the hon. Gentleman takes the view that the current system of postal voting is farcical and an invitation to fraud, why are letters from his party leader going out to people in his constituency, urging them to take advantage of the opportunity of a postal vote? Will he condemn that? If not, his words will be perceived as hollow rhetoric.

Clive Betts: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is an important principle that anyone who wants a postal vote for the coming general election can have one. Does he accept that we must move as quickly as possible to a system of individual registration? That would make more secure not only postal voting but voting at polling stations. To ensure that we do not suffer the problems that happened in Northern Ireland, we should change our registration system to one similar to that in Australia, where there is a fixed register with a three-year audit. The system then concentrates its resources on getting on to the register those who move or who do not register in the first place and it includes the use of data transfer from other organisations to achieve that. If we moved towards that, we could have a more accurate register and a safer voting system.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee, which examined the issues thoroughly and carefully. He has highlighted one option. He knows from the Select Committee's analysis that there are complexities and difficulties and that, in moving forward towards a system that allows more precise individual identification of electors to secure the integrity of the ballot, it is vital that we do not discourage people from registering. The Government have said that we are entirely sympathetic to the principle of individual registration. We want to move in that direction, but in a way that maintains a comprehensive register and does not deter people from registering to vote.

Mark Francois: After a damning verdict by the judge, does the Minister agree that it is now extremely unlikely that any vote in a referendum on the European constitution should take place as an all-postal ballot? When the people of this country vote on that critical document, does he agree that they should have the opportunity to vote on it through a ballot box in a polling station in the traditional British way?

Nick Raynsford: That is not in my remit and I do not know the precise arrangements that will be proposed. However, I know of no plan to conduct such a referendum as an all-postal ballot. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last all-postal referendum was on regional government in the north-east of England and produced a result with which his party was entirely satisfied. There were no allegations of malpractice and a turnout of almost 50 per cent., which is far higher than would otherwise have been expected. He will therefore appreciate that some benefits derive from postal voting and that our task must be to move ahead in a way that retains them while ensuring proper safeguards against the sort of unacceptable abuse that occurred in Birmingham.

Chris Mole: Will my right hon. Friend, in putting the concerns in response to the judgment in proportion, accept reassurances in two parts? First, Sam Younger and the Metropolitan police special branch said, in evidence to the Select Committee, that there was no evidence of widespread abuse of postal voting in this country. Secondly, evidence from the Australian electoral commission showed widespread confidence in postal voting on demand in that country on the back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) said, of individual registration, and a system whereby electronic images of signatures can be used to verify the source of a postal vote before the security envelope is opened. In that way, we could move forwards to a convenient, multi-channel, 21st-century form of voting rather than backwards to stubby pencils.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Select Committee, has examined the issue carefully and his comments are informed by his study. I agree that we are considering complex issues but that it is important to move forward in a way that ensures the safeguards that individual identification provides and a mechanism for checking the validity of postal voting, without rejecting the option that enhances convenience and, as much evidence shows, increases the number of participants in our democratic process.

Crispin Blunt: I served on the Committee that considered the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. It provided for changes to Northern Ireland legislation that were necessary because, in constituencies where Sinn Fein was especially strong, there were up to 10 times the number of postal and proxy votes found elsewhere. We had to protect against systematic abuse. I fear that we do not have the same protection for postal voting under the law in England and we now have a party that was involved in systematic abuse. It happens to be the Minister's party and it sits ill for him to deal with a disaster for confidence in the electoral system by criticising the judge by implication when the Government have had lessons from Northern Ireland about how to protect the system for many years.

Nick Raynsford: The experience of Northern Ireland is important and we intend to examine it closely. However, one of the downsides, which I have highlighted, is the reduction in the number of people registered in Northern Ireland. That is an equal cause of concern. As I have said to several other hon. Members, the evidence of the past seven years shows that cases of abuse have been relatively few. They have covered all parties, so there is no association between abuse and one party. I hope that he will accept what I have made clear: although I wholeheartedly condemn the abuse and thoroughly support the judgment in that respect, I do not agree with inferences, in the absence of detailed evidence, of widespread fraud, on the basis of two specific areas where such fraud undoubtedly occurred. That is the critical issue and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give it more thought, because no one does any service to the electorate's confidence in the voting system by spreading fears about widespread malpractice when the vast majority of the evidence in recent years shows that there is no widespread malpractice.

Mike Gapes: Last year, a council by-election was held in Valentines ward in Redbridge in my constituency. The successfully elected candidate won by nine votes and there were 474 proxy votes in the ward out of about 2,000 votes cast in total. Many of those proxy votes were cast by people living 50 or 100 miles away from the constituency and many were cast by white active Conservatives on behalf of elderly Asian ladies. Can we deal with the question of proxy voting, too, which was abused by the Conservatives in Redbridge last year?

Nick Raynsford: I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). The evidence of malpractice does not apply to any one party and it behoves all of us to condemn malpractice, whoever is responsible. We do not approach this matter in a partisan spirit but in a spirit of wanting to ensure that the electoral system makes it possible for all those who should have an entitlement to vote to do so, and to do so at their convenience, but at the same time to do so in a way that maintains the integrity of the voting system and public confidence in that. That should be our overriding priority.

Andrew Robathan: May I counsel the Minister that shooting the messenger is rarely a good idea? His criticisms of the judge demean him, not the judge. The judge spoke about open invitations to fraud in a banana republic when we are talking about the mother of Parliaments, of which I am proud to be a Member. This is a big issue. Can we have fewer fine words and more action? I note from the Minister's statement that there have been only four prosecutions since 1998 for electoral fraud. Will the six Labour councillors now be barred from office and their assistants be prosecuted? What is the Home Office doing about that? While the Home Office and police are having discussions, what action will police be required to take on allegations of fraudwhich will arisefrom electoral registration officers?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but I have no doubt that the circumstances of this case will be considered by the authorities concerned, with a view to the possibility of a prosecution. In so far as he criticises fine words, most people would share his view about the integrity of this Parliament and the fact that the voting system that has brought all of us here has generally been fair. We should therefore be careful about inferring that the standards of conduct are analogous to those of a banana republic. It behoves all of us to take the necessary steps to ensure that any malpractice, in whatever form, is stamped on where we see it.
	Certainly, the Government accept fully their responsibility to ensure that all those involved are given support, help and guidance to do their best. That is why I have written to returning officers encouraging them to co-operate with the police on measures to stamp out any malpractice that might occur in the forthcoming election. That is the spirit in which we should move forward, with a view to defending the integrity of the electoral system and the good standing of this Parliament. I hope that all Members can agree on that.

Ian Davidson: The Minister will have heard mention in an earlier question of the European referendum. I hope that any difficulties with the voting system will not be used as an excuse to delay the European referendum. Does he agree that the sooner that we have it, the better? Bring it on, I say. I digress, however. Does he accept that a discussion of postal voting involves a variety of elements, one of which is registration? Does he agree that it is essential that we take further steps to try to outlaw, where possible, the use of false, spurious or convenience addresses by voters?

Nick Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, I have no responsibility in respect of the referendum on the European constitution and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that today. People registering at spurious addresses is obviously a concern and I hope that all returning officers will examine that as part of the general approach to which I referred and which I encourage them to pursue in the coming election.

Point of Order

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is inadmissible to criticise the judiciary in this House other than on a substantive motion? If you can do so, will you ask the Minister, who is normally extremely courteous and genial, if he would withdraw his criticism of the judge?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is true that it is not in order to reflect on the conduct of judges of the superior courts. I am not aware, however, of any direct criticism of the conduct of the judge in this particular case.

Computer Misuse Act 1990 (Amendment)

Derek Wyatt: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to create offences in connection with denial of service and to make further provision about proceedings and penalties for an offence under section 1 of that Act; and for connected purposes.
	The initiative for this Bill comes from the all-party internet group's inquiry, which began in March last year. I am indebted to my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), for their great support last year in the report work that we did that paved the way for this Bill. It would also be unfair not to mention the sterling work of our clerks, Marc Woolfson and Nick Lansman of Political Intelligence, who helped to put the report together.
	The all-party internet group has also pioneered twinning with its American counterpart, the internet caucus. We have done that because any measure relating to computers and the internet must now go beyond individual Parliaments. We hope that other committees will note that and develop relationships with other Parliaments in the world. I also want to thank the Home Office, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for her support, and her staff for their work in this regard. It would be unreasonable not to pay tribute, too, to the Earl of Northesk, who also introduced a private Member's Bill in another place in 2002 to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
	Let me give some background to the 1990 Act. Criminal activity involving computers has a long history and several existing statutes have been used in prosecutions for criminal damage, such as Cox v. Riley in 1985 and Regina v. Whitely in 1991, and for fraud, such as Regina v. Lamberti and Filinski in 1987. Eventually, existing legislation proved inadequate to cover all the activities involved in computer hacking. In particular, Robert Schifreen and Steve Gold were initially convicted of a number of offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, after they had used passwords without permission to obtain unauthorised access to electronic mailboxes on the Prestel systemmy, my. However, on 21 April 1998, the House of Lords overturned their convictions, agreeing with Lord Lane in the Court of Appeal that there had been a
	Procrustean attempt to force the facts of the present case into the language of an Act not designed to fit them.
	With regard to legislative matters, events then moved rapidly. In September 1988, the Law Commission published a consultative document on computer misuse. In April 1989, Emma Nicholson, MP, introduced a private Member's Bill to make various hacking activities illegal, but that was widely perceived as containing several faults and failed through lack of time. In October 1989, the Law Commission published its final report on computer misuse, which recommended the three offences that we have today. The legislation to implement them was brought forward as a private Member's Bill by Michael Colvin, MP. That Computer Misuse Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 2 May 1990 and was given Royal Assent on 29 June 1990.
	The Computer Misuse Act 1990 deals with just two mischiefs. In section 1, it criminalises
	unauthorised access to computer material,
	and in section 3,
	unauthorised modification of computer material.
	The offence in section 2 is a more serious version of section 1 where there is an intent to commit or facilitate further offences.
	I propose two further measures. The Bill would add specific denial of serviceDOSand it would increase the tariff for Computer Misuse Act section 1 offences involving hacking from six months to two years.
	A denial of service attack occurs when a deliberate attempt is made to stop a machine performing. Usually another computer is made to create large amounts of specious traffic. The traffic may consist of valid requests made in overwhelming volume, or specifically crafted protocol fragments that cause the serving machine to tie up significant resources to no usual purpose. In a distributed denial of serviceDDOSattack, a large number of remote computers are orchestrated to attack a target at the same time. In some cases, the attacks overwhelm the connecting links to a machine rather than the machine itself. That can result in significant collateral damage that extends beyond the machine that is being attacked.
	DOS and DDOS attacks are extremely common on today's internet, with academic studies measuring more than 4,000 a week. There are many different types of attack and the volume of traffic involved varies hugely, so it is difficult to generalise about the impact. At the lower end of effectiveness, the blips in traffic are hardly noticeable but we are told of cases at the other end in which large university networks have been made unusable for hours at a time.
	Providing protection against some types of DOS and especially DDOS attacks can be technically challenging. It is often hard to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate activity, which means that genuine traffic can be discarded through protective measures.
	Criminal DDOS attacks are being made on gambling websites both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Such attacks are accompanied by demands for amounts between 10,000 and more than 100,000 to make the attacks stop. The impact on gambling businesses has been severe. The national hi-tech crime unit has become involved in investigations, but the perpetrators are believed to be based abroad, which sets some limits on what it can quickly achieve.
	The second part of the Bill deals with length of sentences. At present, a summary conviction under existing law carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison and/or a fine of 5,000. A conviction on indictment currently applies only to section 2 and section 3 offences. In that case, the maximum penalty is five years in prison or an unlimited fine. There are, however, maximum sentences. Home Office figures show that, when a CMA offence is the principal offence with which someone is charged, only about a third of those found guilty are given custodial sentences. When a CMA offence is not the principal offence, the proportion is very small indeed. Often CMA offences involve plea bargains that are not proceeded with because justice has been done in some other way.
	It is regularly claimed that the cost of cleaning up virus or worm attacks runs into billions of pounds. The current level of sentences does not reflect the seriousness of such offences. The attack on the port of Houston in the Caffrey case was widely viewed as an attack on the critical national infrastructure of the United States, a most serious action.
	Longer sentences should be imposed for section 1 offences because of the side effects that that would have. Raising the tariff to one year would make an offender extraditable. Making section 1 offences indictable would make it possible to prosecute for a criminal attempt, which would not have to succeed. Raising the tariff to five years in line with section 2 and section 3 offences would make section 1 offences arrestable. That would also make it easier to obtain search warrants by means of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
	We recommend that the maximum sentence following conviction of an offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act should be raised to two years. Since our report, there has been an interesting series of conversations on the net about whether that is long enough. Spamhaus, in particular, would like it to be longer. Let us hope that, after the general election, the Home Office will introduce its own version of an amended CMA. That would be the time at which to review sentencing.
	The problem is growing. The Symantec global internet threat report covering July to December 2004, released at the end of March, shows that Britain has a larger percentage of botnets than any other country in the world, with 25.2 per cent. of PCs infected. The United States and China are second and third respectively. The fast growth in broadband take-up has been cited as the main reason for Britain's topping the chart: users take on always-on connections without being aware of the security risks. The number is expected to decline as the UK Government's education and awareness programmes IT Safe and Project Endurance begin to take effect.
	Although high-profile DDOS attacks have been made against e-commerce and, especially, gambling sites, the UK Government and the country's critical infrastructure could also be attacked. It is essential for a law to be in place to make prosecution possible when offences are committed, because that will send the strong and unambiguous message that e-crime is treated with the utmost seriousness. International co-operation is also key. Increasing sentences for section 1 offences to two years will create an extraditable offence, and bring the law into line with the European cybercrime convention.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Brian White, Mr. Richard Allan, Sue Doughty and Dr. Nick Palmer.

Computer Misuse Act 1990 (Amendment)

Mr. Derek Wyatt accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to create offences in connection with denial of service and to make further provision about proceedings and penalties for an offence under section 1 of that Act; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 15 April, and to be printed [Bill 102].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Equality Bill

[Relevant document: The Sixteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 200405, Equality Bill, HC 497.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill will help to transform the way in which we promote equality and tackle discrimination in 21st-century Britain. It is underpinned by the Government's belief in the equal value and worth of every human being. It reflects our commitment to creating a Britain in which every individual can fulfil his or her potentialmen and women alike, whatever their background, class, religion or race, regardless of age, disability or sexual orientation.
	For us, equality is a basic moral principle. We believe in a fairer society. Increasingly, however, in the present competitive and global economy, equality and economic success go hand in hand. Britain's businessesindeed, all Britain's employers, in whatever sector of the economy they operateneed to draw on the talents of the whole work force if they are to remain successful. So promoting equality and diversity, as the Bill does, is vital not only to securing individual opportunity and potential, but to the prosperity of our society as a whole.
	Many of us in the House have campaigned for equality and human rights for decades. Having worked with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 myself, I supported what became the first test case involving indirect sex discrimination. That case led to the abolition of age requirements for admission to senior jobs in the civil service. I am proud now to serve in a Government who I believe have done more to promote equality and tackle discrimination than any other Government in our country.
	In 2000, we established the Disability Rights Commission to promote the rights of disabled people. Last year, we introduced the Disability Discrimination Bill, currently proceeding through the House, which will bring into force a new duty for the public sector to promote equality for people with disabilities. We have outlawed discrimination in the workplace on grounds of religion and belief and of sexual orientation, and in October 2006 that legislation will be extended to cover age discrimination. We have delivered the biggest ever package of support for working parents, including an extension of maternity leave, an increase in maternity pay, new rights to flexible working and guaranteed free nursery places for all three and four-year-olds. As part of that approach, we have given more support to fathers, including two weeks' paid paternity leave for the first time ever. We have outlawed race discrimination in all public functions, and imposed a new duty on public bodies to promote race equality.

Keith Vaz: May I place on the record at the start my thanks for the work that my right hon. Friend has done with the black and Asian community on this Bill? She has listened very carefully to what they have said in meeting the concerns of the Commission for Racial Equality, allowing them to be part of this process while letting them, in effect, join in at a later date. In my view, that would not have happened but for her own personal commitment. She is a true champion of equality.

Patricia Hewitt: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for those very generous remarks. May I, in turn, thank him for the work that healong with many other of my right hon. and hon. Friendsdid to ensure that the concerns that were widely held within the black and Asian British communities when we first published the White Paper were indeed addressed by the Government in our response to that consultation? As a result, the CRE has welcomed the Bill, as does my hon. Friend, and I thank him for that work.
	I also want to pay tribute to the work that the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), has done on this Bill, and in introducing and piloting through the House the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which will ensure that in future, same-sex couples will have the same inheritance, pension and next-of-kin rights as married couples. I also want to thank the many hon. Friendshonourable sisters, if I may say sowho joined me in campaigning for, and helping to secure the passage of, the equal representation legislation that has enabled all political parties that choose to do so to take positive action to ensure a proper balance in the selection of candidates, whether for this House or for other elected office.
	As I reflect on our Government's many achievements, I must mention in particular the Human Rights Act 1998, which in my view is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in recent years. It has incorporated into British law the European convention on human rights, which our country helped to draft in the aftermath of the second world war. By doing so, we have ensured that British people no longer need to go to Strasbourg and to the European Court of Human Rights in order to uphold their rights under that convention; rather, they can do so within the courts of our own country.

Angela Eagle: I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box to introduce Second Reading of this extremely important Bill, which will clearly be overtaken by outside events. Will she give an undertaking that a re-elected Labour Government would reintroduce it very quickly? On a slightly different subject, is she as shocked as I am that the Conservatives appear to wish to abolish the Human Rights Act in certain circumstances? Indeed, they are openly saying so in their campaign literature and out in the constituencies.

Patricia Hewitt: I cannot pre-empt a future Queen's Speech, and rather more importantly I cannot pre-empt the verdict of the British people. But should we secure a third term in governmentas I hope we willI have no doubt that this Bill will be reintroduced extremely early in the first Session. Frankly, I share my hon. Friend's dismay at what leading figures in the Conservative party, at least, are saying about the Human Rights Act; indeed, it was in part because of those comments that I made a particular point of referring to it.
	So there have been some significant achievements, but despite that, unacceptable inequalities in opportunity remain and too many people still face discrimination and prejudice. Let me give just a few examples. British African-Caribbean men are still four times as likely to be unemployed as their white counterpartsa statistic that applies to every group, from the least skilled to the most, regardless of their qualifications. Women in full-time employment still earn almost 20 per cent. less than mena figure that is almost double for those in part-time work. People with disabilities are nine times as likely as non-disabled people to be out of work and claiming benefits, even though so many of them want a job. The autonomy and dignity of many people with disabilities is still routinely impeded by the difficulties that they face in accessing shops, services and transport.

Tom Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has just said about disability, and I welcome the measures in the Bill. In particular, I want to express the gratitude of the many people in Scotland with disabilities who realise that the Bill reflects the new situation there under devolution. I am glad to say that the Executive seem very much aware of the problems and challenges that disabled people face.

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friend is a great champion of the cause of people with disabilities, and I pay tribute to him for that. I agree with him, in that the Bill creates the right relationship between the new commission, which will have a UK-wide remit, and the work of the Executive and of the commissions in Scotland.
	Returning to the broader issue of discrimination and continuing prejudice in our society, we know that gay men, lesbians and bisexual people still far too often face discrimination and prejudice at work and in the wider community. We also know that many older peopleI declare an interest as a 56-year-oldwho want to work and who enjoy full opportunities are prevented from doing so. I am glad to say that that does not apply to those of us in this House, but as I constantly observe in my own constituency, far too many people find it impossible even to get a job interview, never mind a job, because of their age. A distressingly high proportion of people from the Muslim communities report unfair treatment from private and, I regret to say, public services alike.

Linda Perham: I understand that the Bill provides for a duty to promote gender equality, which we all welcome, but not age equality. Will my right hon. Friend look at the question of discrimination on the ground of age in the context of this Bill?

Patricia Hewitt: I am sure that we will return to this extremely important issue, but in any case, we will be considering it in the wider review of anti-discrimination law, on which I will have a little more to say later.
	This Bill is a major plank in the Government's strategy to ensure that every individual can fulfil their potential, and that discrimination and prejudice have no place in our society. It will herald a transformation in the way that Britain tackles discrimination and disadvantage, and it will do so in three ways. First, it will establish a powerful new commission to champion equality and human rights for all. Secondly, it will extend the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief beyond employment and into goods, facilities and services, the management and disposal of premises and the exercise of public functions. Thirdly, it will create a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity between men and women.
	Much progress has been made over many decades towards a more equal society, not least through the achievements of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission. I pay tribute to the pioneering work that those three bodies have done over the years, and to the impact that they continue to make in tackling discrimination and inequality. But I think it true that if we were starting afreshif we were creating for the first time a framework of law and institutions to tackle discrimination and disadvantagewe would not set up separate bodies. Until now, responsibility for challenging discrimination has been sectionalised. Problems have too often been seen as the responsibility of the groups and people who experience them, rather than of society as a whole. Instead of putting people in a boxsaying, You're a woman. You're black. You're disabled.we need to understand that in modern Britain, people's identities are multiple and complex.

Tim Boswell: I thoroughly agree with the Secretary of State on the points that she is making, but does she agree that the new commission will stand or fall in relation to its perceived service to its users and whether it is able adequately to represent the specific interests of people who may feel that they have suffered from specific elements of discrimination that require vigorous and effective pursuit?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who raises an extremely important point. The new commission will need to promote an ethic of equality and human rights that applies to everyone in our societyan ethic of respect for every individual and every community. Within that, we well know that some individuals and groups suffer from particular prejudice, stereotyping and sometimes violence because of particular characteristics of their identity. The commission must be a powerful voice for every group and able to act when there is discrimination against particular individuals. Instead of arguing about which group suffers the most from prejudice, as sometimes happens, we need to understand that all prejudice and discrimination is unacceptable.
	Let me deal with some examples of acts of violence against different groups. Last October, a man called David Morley was savagely beaten to death on the south bank of London in an entirely unprovoked attack. He was targeted, it appears, because he was gay. Just as abhorrent is the murder, on average, of two women a week by their partners, husbands or former partners simply because they are the less powerful partner in the relationship. Just as abhorrent again is violence directed against members of black and minority ethnic communities, against Muslim women who wear the hejab or against fellow human beings who happen to be, for instance, in a wheelchair. All acts of violence provoked by prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping are abhorrent and all must be dealt with. In other words, the creation of a truly equal society is not a minority issue, but an issue for us all.
	The Bill is critical to achieving that goal. It establishes a new commission for equality and human rights, which will bring together the work of the existing commissions with the new equality strands of age, religion and belief, and sexual orientation, alongside human rights. The new commission will be a powerful and authoritative champion for change. It will help individuals by providing them with more accessible and coherent advice and support. It will help communities by promoting good relations and increasing understanding between different groups. In that respect, it builds particularly on the work of the Commission for Racial Equality.
	The new commission will also help the organisations of civil societyemployers, service providers, public and voluntary bodiesby delivering a single source of help and advice on the law and spreading awareness of best practice. It will also help society as a whole, including the Government and both Houses of Parliament, by tracking Britain's progress on equality and human rights.
	In drawing up our proposals, we have listened carefully to the views of a wide range of stakeholders, including members of the existing equalities commissions. In December 2003, we set up a taskforce to advise us on our proposals. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of that taskforce for their hard work and commitment in helping us develop our plans. It is fair to say that we could not have reached this stage without them.
	In May last year, we published our White Paper, Fairness for All. We received more than 440 responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals and we listened carefully to the issues and concerns that were raised. As a result, our response to the consultation, which was published last November, outlined a number of important changes to our proposals to ensure that the new commission effectively tackles the root causes of discrimination and successfully promotes equality and human rights.

John Bercow: I warmly endorse the thrust of what the Secretary of State has said thus far. However, given the importance of practising what we preach, can she explain why, in respect of the duty to promote gender equality, the relevant clause appears to provide an exemption for the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Church of England and the intelligence services? That is not very good, is it?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and I am grateful for his support of the Bill in principle. My understanding is that the drafting of that clause closely follows the existing duties, particularly regarding race, but I am sure that we can return to the issue in greater detail in Committeeif not in the present Parliament, in the next.
	I want to turn now to the detail of the Bill. Part 1 establishes the commission for equality and human rights and defines its purpose and functions. The fundamental duty of the new commission is to work towards a society in which everyone can achieve their potential, free from prejudice and discrimination, and where there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual. It will achieve that goal by promoting awareness of discrimination and human rights law, spreading good practice and enforcing anti-discrimination legislation. Clauses 22 to 34 set out the range of powers that the commission will be able to use to enforce such legislation. Those build on the enforcement powers of the existing equality commissions, but also provide new and more flexible powers in a number of important areas.
	The commission will have a new power to assess how public bodies are complying with their equality duties and also a poweravailable for the first time across all discrimination lawto enter into binding agreements with bodies as an alternative to an investigation. It will be able to arrange conciliation in disputes in areas where conciliation services are not already available through ACAS and it will have explicit powers to seek leave to intervene in legal proceedings as a third party, allowing it strategic influence in key cases. It will have new powers to conduct inquiries into sectors or named bodies on multiple discrimination and human rights issues. Unlike the current commissions, there will be no statutory constraints on the discrimination cases that the new commission can support and no requirement to seek the permission of the Secretary of State to summon witnesses and obtain papers for discrimination cases, inquiries or investigations.
	As well as its work to promote and enforce equalities legislation, the new commission will bring together human rights and equality issues for the first time. That is a hugely significant step, which will help to build a culture in which the rights and equal worth of every individual is truly understood and honoured. The new commission will raise awareness of the importance of human rights and encourage compliance and good practice by public authorities with Human Rights Act obligations.

Vera Baird: I welcome the Bill overwhelmingly in respect of both equality and human rights. The Secretary of State has set out the powers that the new commission will have to promote equality. Is it not the case that the powers of enforcement in respect of human rights are considerably weaker? There are no investigatory powers, no enforcement powers and no powers even to issue codes of practice. Am I missing the justification for that?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right that we have distinguished between the new commission's powers in respect of anti-discrimination law and its powers in respect of human rights law. The reason is simple: human rights law covers such a wide range of potential obligationsparticularly, but not only, on public bodiesthat we decided that giving the commission the same powers in respect of human rights law as it will have in respect of anti-discrimination law would be to overburden it. It is too much to expect of it such a wide range of activities and expertise, as it might not be able to fulfil the burden of expectations or duties placed on it. We believe that we have the balance right as between securing the advantage of placing anti-discrimination law into the broader context of human rights and having a commission that will be able to promote understanding and awareness of human rights without, frankly, overburdening it or expecting it to do potentially everything for everybody. Therefore, the commission will have powers to conduct general inquiries into human rights issues, as well as into individual organisations' performance. In another new departure, it will also have powers to apply to intervene in human rights cases. The Bill does not lack powers in relation to human rights, but contains an appropriate balance of such powers.
	As I said, the commission will also have a duty to promote good relations between all communities. We would expect it to give priority to the work that the Commission for Racial Equality has pioneered with black and ethnic minorities and faith communities. It will also have new powers explicitly to combat and monitor prejudice and crime affecting particular communities, such as hate crimes. Given the present enormous concerns among faith communities, especially about the rise of Islamaphobia and anti-Semitic prejudice, that power will be of particular importance.
	A critical aspect of the commission's work will be to publish a regular state of the nation report. That triannual report will use hard measures and rigorous evidence to monitor the progress being made towards delivering greater equality of opportunity and tackling discrimination.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that a triannual report appearing, in effect, only once during a Parliament would not be enough? Should not the commission report every two years instead?

Patricia Hewitt: That is something that we would be happy to look at further in Standing Committee. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's implication that he does not consider the commission's reporting functions as unnecessary red tape. I hope that we can agree on that, at least.
	Whatever the interval, the report will be an important tool for holding to account the public sector, the Government and employers more broadly for the progress being made, as well as providing a means for Parliament and others to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies that the commission adopts to reduce inequality.
	During the consultation process, organisations raised a number of important issues about how the commission will work. First, the commission needs to draw on the substantial existing expertise of those already working in different equality areas, including people in the current commissions. That point was made with great force, and we readily accept it. The appointment provisions in the Bill will ensure that members of the commission's board have knowledge and experience relevant to different areas of discrimination and human rights, and of the commission's functions in the round. Secondly, consultees stressedand we entirely acceptthat the commission needs to reach out to and involve all communities in its work. That is why it will have a new duty to consult with specific communities and the wider public on its strategic priorities. Thirdly, we have listened carefully to the views of people with disabilities. That relates to a point raised a moment ago. We have made provision for the establishment of a disability committee. Disabled people will form at least half of that committee's membership, to advise and take decisions on the commission's disability work.
	Finally, we want to ensure that the commission responds fully to the distinctive needs and circumstances in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the Bill ensures the commission has statutory committees in Scotland and Wales covering all aspects of its work.

Angela Eagle: There has been concern in the Disability Rights Commission that there is no direct representation of people with disabilities in the otherwise very effective equality body established in Northern Ireland. The Bill adopts a good approach, but can my right hon. Friend guarantee that that will continue, so that disabled people will know that they will always have direct representation on the new body? In that way, their voice will be heard directly, and just where it needs to be heard.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I agree strongly. The voice of disabled people will be heard and felt strongly in the commission as a result of the provisions in the Bill, especially the establishment of the disability committee and the requirement that the board reflect the broad range of experience and expertise.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State agree that the provisions of the Bill should be supported eventually by a single equalities Act? That would reinforce this Bill, and make it almost impossible for the equality commission not to take account of the interests of any sector of society likely to suffer discrimination.

Patricia Hewitt: I agree, and I shall return to the question of a single equalities Act in a moment.

Julie Morgan: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Welsh committee, and I am pleased that the Government have recognised Wales' devolved nature. Can she say how the members of the Welsh committee will be appointed?

Patricia Hewitt: I am not sure that I can, at the moment. That is an extremely important question, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality to deal with it when she winds up the debate.
	I want to move on to part 2 of the Bill, which will plug a significant gap in existing equalities legislation. During the consultation process, a number of organisations strongly called for the extension of protection against religious discrimination. At present, that protection applies only to employment conditions. The Bill's provisions in respect of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief are designed to answer those concerns.
	The Bill will also address the imbalance that has emerged from case law under the Race Relations Act 1976. People of the Jewish faith and in the Sikh community are afforded protection in certain areas of the law as ethnic groups, while members of other religions and faiths are not. For example, a Jew or a Sikh who is refused service in a restaurant or a shop can challenge that discrimination through the legal system, but members of any other religion or belief who receive the same unfair treatment cannot. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that it is simply unacceptable that a shop, hotel or restaurant can lawfully refuse to serve Muslims, and a golf club can refuse to accept them as members, whereas the same practices would be outlawed if applied to Jewish or Sikh men and women.

Helen Jackson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and her team on this important Bill, but does she agree that, in this context, another lesson can be drawn from Northern Ireland? The very deep religious and cultural differences there meant that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland played a crucial role in the Good Friday agreement. Its recognition of the differences was an essential element in resolving some of the cultural problems in Northern Ireland.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend speaks from deep personal experience, as she made an enormous contribution to the process of achieving the Good Friday agreement. She is right: a commission that recognises the cultural differences that can give rise to prejudice and discrimination can help to create the fairer and more harmonious society that we all want. Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to say how much the House will miss my hon. Friend in the next Parliament.
	Part 2 of the Bill will end the anomaly that I described. The proposed measures will make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities or services, or to discriminate against or harass a person on those grounds in disposing of or renting property, in the provision of education or in the exercise of other public functions. Various exceptions are provided for, for example in the case of faith schools, Parliament, the security agencies and the armed forcesagain following precedent in these mattersand of course the courts.

Linda Perham: With reference to goods, facilities and services, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a cause of great grievance among older people when they are discriminated againstfor example, when somebody over 70 tries to hire a car? Although part 2 concentrates on religion and belief, there are older people who believe that the anomalies affecting them should be addressed.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which we will certainly address in the review of equalities legislation, to which I shall return shortly. It is an important point, but it was simply not possible to address all the implications of that in the Bill.
	With regard to part 2, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for the enormous efforts that she and her officials have made to ensure that we could have the relevant provisions in the Bill. That is an important step forward.
	Part 3 brings sex discrimination legislation into step with race and disability legislation. We have already introduced a duty on the public sector to promote race equality, and we plan to enact a duty to promote equality between disabled and non-disabled people. The Bill ensures similar provisions in relation to gender, so public authorities will be prohibited from sex discrimination in carrying out their public functions, and will have a new duty to promote equality of opportunity between men and women when carrying out those functions, and to tackle unlawful discrimination.

Tim Boswell: Does that mean that for the new strandsthe ones not historically represented by commissionsthat duty will not be written into the provisions? What is the thinking behind that apparent discrimination? There seems to be a functional distinction between those who are reinforced by their traditional position, and those who come new to the issue.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, to which I alluded when responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on the question of age discrimination. It is simply not possible in the Bill to deal with every aspect of the inconsistencies in the legislative treatment of different groups.
	In closing, I should like to put the Bill into the broader context of the other steps that we as a Government are taking to deal with discrimination and to promote equality. The Bill will, as I have indicated, take three important stepsthe gender duty, the extension of discrimination law on grounds of religion or belief, and above all, the establishment of the single equality and human rights commission. But we are taking two other hugely important steps. We have already established an equalities review, which is being led by Trevor Phillips, who is also the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, to look at the long-term and underlying causes of inequality and disadvantage. That much wider review will inform the work of the single commission and provide practical recommendations on key policy priorities for the Government, but not only for the Governmentalso for the public sector, employers, trade unions, the voluntary sector and civil society as a whole.

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Patricia Hewitt: Let me, if I may, finish the point.
	We have also launched a review of equality legislation to correct the inconsistencies and inequalities in our discrimination law. That work, which will seek to simplify and modernise the law, will move towards the establishment of a single equality Act, for which equality organisations and many of my hon. Friends have been campaigning for many years. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am grateful also for the way that she continued her sentence. Perhaps it would have been better if I had not intervened on her. She seems to have answered the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) by suggesting that once the two reviews are finished, it should be possible for us to have a Bill that would require the new organisation to adopt the duty across the piece, so that equality is not atomised, but dealt with as a whole.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is precisely the scope not only of the duty on public authorities, but of various other aspects of anti-discrimination law that we will be able to examine in the review of equalities legislationa review that my Department is leading and on which we have already started. It might be helpful if I say that there will be a full consultation and a properly inclusive process as we look at the various aspects of anti-discrimination law.
	The Bill, and more broadly our strategy to counter inequality and discrimination, is a product of work right across Government. I am very grateful indeed to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have worked as a single team not only to promote the Bill, but to put in place the two other reviews that I mentioned. We also have the cross-Government strategy to promote racial equality and social cohesion, which is being led by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; the work to take forward the national employment panel's recommendations for increasing employment and business growth for ethnic minorities, which is led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; and the work on improving the life chances for people with disabilities and the recently published strategy on age diversity, led my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
	As I said, we in the Government believe that equality and human rights are not minority concerns. They are the cornerstones of a strong and fair society, and of a strong and prosperous society. They are the foundations of the mutual trust and respect that we all wish to see in our country. Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the date of the next general election, so in a few days we will be leaving the House for our constituencies and the election campaign. I hope that all of us who have had the privilege of serving as Members of the House and all who aspire to do so will avoid doing anything to arouse or exploit prejudice against any group in our society.
	In the election campaign, there will of course be sharp disagreements and passionate debate. That is as it should be, and it is a tribute to our democracy and to the freedom of speech and political expression that we cherish, and which is entrenched in our Human Rights Act, that it should be so. But let us exercise that freedom of speech in a way that reflects the best traditions of the House, rather than the worst elements of some of our media. I trust that once we have had the verdict of the British people, the Bill will proceed to full enactment. I believe that it is good for individuals, good for our communities and good for the social and economic strength of our country, and I commend it to the House.

Henry Bellingham: I begin by declaring my interests, as set out in the register.
	I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), whose middle son had quite a big heart operation a couple of days ago. My hon. Friend felt that he should be with his family at this time. His boy is making good progress, I am pleased to say.
	I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the clear way in which she explained the Bill. Whatever our concerns about the Billwe have a number of themshe has worked hard on the agenda with her right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality. In 2002 she published the consultation paper, Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen. We then had the statement of intent in October 2003 and the White Paper in 2004, followed by the Bill. Whatever our disagreements with the Secretary of State about red tape, regulation and many other themes that we have pursued, she can be proud that what she has worked so hard on is coming to fruition. All Conservative Members praise the work that she and her team have done, but there will soon be an election and everything is now riddled with uncertainty.
	I offer our broad support for the Bill, particularly clause 3 on the fundamental duties of the commission. The Opposition sign up to those aspirations. We support the principle of bringing the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission together and adding the new strands of sexual orientation, religion or belief and age. Given that no statutory body is charged with promoting human rights, it makes sense to give that duty to the new commission for equality and human rights.

Tim Boswell: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's authoritative welcome for the Bill's principles. In heaping justified praise on the Government for their changes following consultation, does he agree that that is an object lesson to the House and the country in the formulation of public policy? We have already made many improvements in the initial process that drives us forward to the need for careful consideration. The Secretary of State referred to the commission and we want the correct final outcome, which we have not yet reached.

Henry Bellingham: I would like to praise my hon. Friend for his work on disability issues over many years, and I also praise my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). Members of Parliament and Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House have worked hard on a non-party political basis. I agree that it is important that the Bill should go into Committee because we want clarification on a number of points.
	I shall raise some general concerns, but first I want to examine some specific points because it is obvious that the Bill will not go into Committee in the near future. If the Minister has time when she winds up, perhaps she will clarify one or two points. Clause 6 covers disclosure, so what will be the impact of the Freedom of Information Act 2000?
	Under clause 13 on monitoring progress, as I said during my brief intervention on the Secretary of State, the commission will be required to publish a report within three years of the Bill coming into force and every three years thereafter. That will be approximately once in the lifetime of a Parliament, which is insufficient scrutiny. Perhaps we can return to that.
	Clause 30 refers to legal assistance and subsection (1) enables the commission to give assistance to an individual who is the victim of discrimination or
	who is or may become party to legal proceedings.
	Will the cost of that assistance come from the commission's budget or will it be funded by the Legal Services Commission, and what is the relationship between the two? The commission for equality and human rights could be running other casesfor example, judicial review cases under clause 32and that could have a substantial impact on its budget. What would happen if it ran over budget? Will there be a supplemental budget for such legal cases and will the Legal Services Commission be involved?
	Clauses 38 to 40 refer to dissolution, which is highly relevant to today's announcement, the transfer of property, rights and liabilities and to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. What about the existing commissions' ongoing cases? It is important during the transition period that the three commissions are not deterred from launching new actions and it is equally important that existing legal actions are pursued with the usual professionalism, resources and commitment. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance on that.
	Clause 34 refers to public sector duties and enables the commission to require a public authority to comply with its public sector duties covering gender, race and disability. What about the other strands of age, religion or belief and sexual orientation, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) alluded? Age Concern is worried about that and sees some illogicality. It believes that omission of the other strands and the relationship of public authorities in terms of their duty goes against the essence of the commission's approach.
	The Secretary of State kindly wrote to me and other colleagues on 25 February announcing the Government's equalities review, which will run in tandem with the Department of Trade and Industry's discrimination law review. The equalities review will be chaired by Trevor Phillips and will report in 2006. It will review all equality legislation. Is it sensible to go ahead with the Bill before we have the findings of those reviews? We support the broad outline of the Bill, but some important reviews will report in the near future.
	Stonewall has said:
	the creation of the CEHR will show that the current inequality in legislative provision is untenable. A Single Equality Bill, simplifying and standardising equality legislation for all protected groups, will bring greater clarity for individuals and employers as well as equality for those groups who are lagging behind.
	That view is echoed by other bodies.

Angela Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the Bill should not be reintroduced early in the next Parliament but should be delayed for a year or two?

Henry Bellingham: It is important to get the Bill right and it might be better to have one really good Bill following the outcome of those reviews. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that.
	The Disability Rights Commission states in its briefing to Members on the importance of harmonised equality legislation:
	The DRC believes that a CEHR cannot be fully effective without new legislation to level up the current provisions for the various equality strands . . . The wide disparities within current equality legislation will result in different groups of people having different levels of protection.
	That is my concern and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that when she winds up.

Helen Jackson: In light of the current circumstances and the detailed examination that the Conservatives have given to their spending plans if they were to form a Government, have they earmarked expenditure for these provisions and will they support and push for them, or will they be among the 35 billion of cuts?

Henry Bellingham: That is a red herring. We have made it clear that we will streamline the Department of Trade and Industry and cut some of its funds. Its budget and the number of staff have risen sharply over the past eight years and there will be plenty of money around for important legislation and maintaining priorities. If I am fortunate enough to be in the position of the Minister of State and in charge of the legislation, the DTI team will do what it can to ensure that those priorities are maintained.

Chris Bryant: I want to take a different tack, but before doing so, I have to say that it is a delight to hear the hon. Gentleman citing Stonewall in this Chamber. He would not have done so five or 10 years ago and we are enormously grateful for that change in the Conservative party in recent months.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said earlier from a sedentary position that the Conservatives would introduce a similar Bill soon after the general election. If he can do so with a straight face, will the hon. Gentleman say how quickly they might introduce such legislation when they win the general election?

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman mentions the word when; perhaps he has seen the opinion poll in the Financial Times today. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will do in his first Queen's Speech, but our Front-Bench spokesmen and spokeswomen feel strongly about the Bill and will do all we can to pursue its important priorities if the electorate give us the mandate.
	On disability rights and the work of the DRC, I recently had a useful meeting with the West Norfolk disability information serviceWNDISand its representatives, Mr. Jonathan Toye and Mr. Brian Reed. They expressed concern that the new commission will not have the same focus, bite, and detailed and expert knowledge that the DRC has. We discussed at some length how the disability rights functions of the new commission will work. I feel, as they did, that the commission must reflect the unique and complex nature of disability as well as the distinctive legislative provisions on disability. Incidentally, they do a superb job helping disabled people in my constituency, explaining what their rights are, sponsoring cases in which there has been injustice and a breach of those rights, explaining to local businesses exactly what they should be doing, and working with local public bodies. We discussed the importance of the commission having a dedicated disability committee, and I should like the Minister to elaborate on that and to put at rest the minds of two excellent and hard-working constituents of mine who are concerned that the DRC's expertise and professionalism should be continued.
	Is there a real possibility that the other strands will also want their own dedicated committees? I have always been in favour of a federal approach, under which the commission would be an umbrella body focusing on cross-cutting and shared issues together with units and appointed committees, with executive powers, concerned with each strand. Whether it is too late to go down that route, I do not know, but there is the obvious precedent of the disability committee.
	We support the idea of a one-stop shop. We find it attractive, and it has been welcomed by a lot of organisations, such as the CBI, which has not always supported what the Government have done, but which said:
	The current approach is often confusing, time consuming and does not offer adequate support for issues crossing over different equality strands. A single commission would have the advantage of being a simple 'one-stop shop' for advice on all equality issues, presenting a joined-up approach that could help rationalise support.
	It is important that the Government should listen to business needs, and the Government's White Paper, issued a short while ago, noted on page 164, in paragraph 7.23:
	The Government expects members of the  . . . board and senior management team to include people with experience of business and management to help ensure that, as an organisation, it is equipped to engage constructively.
	We certainly support that, particularly bearing in mind the importance of small businesses, which represent 99 per cent. of all firms. They generate 52 per cent. of the country's wealth, and many prefer to work through intermediaries. That is why it is vital that the commission should make a special effort to work with those intermediaries so that it is able to get through to the small businesses that are such an important part of our wealth creation.
	There is no reason why the commission cannot develop as an authoritative and credible body. Merging different organisations into one should lead to efficiencies. I am well aware that the start-up costs of any new super-commission will be substantial. I understand that they will be in excess of 24 million. The transfer of undertakings will obviously be expensive, and there will be a need for new IT systems. However, given that the three existing strands will come into one body, even though there are three new strands and even though human rights work will come in, economies of scale should surely lead to a lowering of costs.
	I do not understand why the DTI will not insist that a really impressive example is set here. Yet, page 47 of the explanatory notes to the Bill makes it quite clear that the estimated annual budget of the new commission when fully operationalnot before 2007, and possibly laterwill be 70 million. That is up from a combined budget of the existing commissions of 43 million. Most of the extra cost will be down to the extra staff, but there surely could be substantial savings on staff. In rationalising and merging IT departments and other departments, such as public relations, there should surely be a case for a more streamlined operation. I should have thought we could easily consider the new commission employing fewer than 500 staff and still doing a really good job. Surely the Secretary of State should at least try to deliver that and to set an example.
	In theory, merging and consolidating existing regulators into a new super-regulator should lead to more efficiency and a simplified service. On the other hand, if one thinks of recent history, that has not always been the case. Consider the Financial Services Authority, whose handbook now runs to more than 8,000 pages. Can it really be said that the FSA is better run and more user friendly than some of its predecessor bodies, such as the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation? The DTI should do its level best to set a good example of a state-of-the-art, efficient organisation that offers really good value for money.
	On the subject, incidentally, of the DTI setting a good example, the Secretary of State mentioned that diversity is important. Why, therefore, do a significant majority of DTI officials60 per cent. in a recent surveynot agree with the statement:
	I believe that DTI recognises the diversity of its customers and adapts its policies to reach them.?
	The Secretary of State has rightly said that it is important to narrow the gender pay gap, and we feel strongly about that. Why, then, is there still a 16 per cent. difference between male and female salaries at the DTI, a figure only marginally better than the national average? Surely that should concern the Secretary of State.
	We are, to some extent, in a slightly surreal situation. We are debating a vital matter, an issue of great importance to millions of people. Yet everyone knows that we are putting up a facade this afternoon and that the Bill will go nowhere. That is why it is important that the Bill should be brought back at an early stage after the election.
	I should make one point to the Secretary of State. We have made it clear all along that we support the Bill. The Liberal Democrats also support the Bill. Yet quite a few Bills have been brought before the House in this Session that did not command cross-party support. Why was not this Bill given greater priority? Why did not the Government bring it forward months ago? We would have supported it, and it could be on the statute book. I do not understand that at all. It does not seem to make any sense. There were no logical, technical or practical reasons why it could not have been brought forward.
	As an Opposition, we feel strongly that everyone should be given fair treatment. Discrimination of any kind is morally wrong. It destroys lives; it breaks up families; it ruins health. It also destroys wealth, because the most valuable asset of any business is its employees. If they are undervalued, undermined or discriminated against, how can they give of their best? If their lives are falling apart because their home life is a misery, how can they go to work with motivation and commitment?
	We want everyone to be given every possible opportunity to reach the maximum fulfilment of their lives, free of any kind of discrimination, free of any kind of abuse and free of any kind of prejudice. We respect and support much of the work that the Government have done, but we are equally proud of our own party's record, especially on disability, and particularly of the work done by the late right hon. Nick Scott when he was Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) when he was in that post. Our party has an excellent record on these issues, and that is why, if we do win the support of the electorate, we will continue with that work.

Tom Clarke: Not only do I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I find myself agreeing with the main thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who has made a distinguished contribution on disability matters, when they welcome the Bill and, I assume, welcome the aspects of it that refer to disability.
	It seems odd, on a day when an election has been declared, that the House is again showing that we can reach agreement on important issues. If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk sounded a little impatient, I hope that in the course of my remarks I will be able to reassure him that, particularly in the field of disability, patience is, I am afraid, something that has to be acquired. I hope, nevertheless, that when my party is deservedly re-elected in a few weeks' time, it will bring the Bill back to the House very speedily, if only because of its great merits.
	The Bill's main thrust is to establish a commission for equality and human rights. That will, of course, take over disability rights, and I want to devote most of my speech to that, as well as to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
	There are, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 10 million people in this country who experience some aspect of disability, and of course it is right that in a society committed to pluralism we bear in mind not just their needs but their rights, including the rights of participation which were, to some extent, discussed following the statement earlier today.
	I wonder whether the House will, if only for a few moments, allow me a degree of nostalgia when I refer to the setting up of the Disability Rights Commission. As someone who was fairly heavily involved in that policy, it seems to me that its existence will last for a shorter term than I expected. Reflecting on the formation of the DRC, I can tell the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson)a very distinguished parliamentarian whom we will miss very muchwas extremely relevant.
	As the member of the shadow Cabinet responsible for disability matters before 1997, it was my task to contribute to policy formulation and to present to my party's annual conference, which I was very proud to do, the proposal that such a measure should be included in the manifesto and then introduced by a Labour Government. I was proud to do it, particularly after we had been defeated by a mere 13 votes by the previous Government, whose spokesman on disability, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who later became Conservative party leader, strongly resisted the idea.
	My hon. Friend's intervention was relevant to this extent: I can tell the House that before I was able to make the declaration to our party conference, seek its approval and, I hope, have something to do with its inclusion in our manifesto for the 1997 election, the proposal had to be costed very carefully. I remember long conversations well into the night on the Friday before conference, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who was then the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We did not get an agreement easily, but once it was done we knew that the proposal had been costed and was to be part of our Government's policy, and I am very glad that that has been implemented. These matters have to be considered carefully, so my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough is right.
	When it was proposed to set up a new commission embracing other bodies, including those for disability, I took the view that there might be a backlash against the idea, but I am pleased that that has not happened. That was largely because of the way in which the Government dealt with the matter, which included setting up the taskforce, and also because they went out of their way to embrace not just the DRC but the various disability organisations that realised, although they were so supportive of the DRC, that they would have an even stronger role in a larger, more effective and influential body. I hope that that is how things will develop.
	I can remember the Disability Action Network, some of whose members decided to occupy Labour party headquarters for nearly a day, initially to protest about lack of access. Once they found that it was easy to get to the third floor, where the national executive met, they changed their demands. They wanted an immediate declaration from the then Leader of the Oppositionnow my right hon. Friend the Prime Ministerthat a commission would be set up. We do not make policy under those conditions, and I said so. However, because of those strong feelings, I want to refer to the views of the DRC.
	It is true that there are reservations about some aspects of the Government's thinking, but the DRC view on the Bill is clear. It says that it
	marks a new approach to equality and human rights which we believe has great potential to transform the life chances of disabled people and other marginalised groups in our society.
	I know that the House will give great weight to the views of the DRC in that regard.
	The DRC went on to sayand I agreethat there is a need for
	strong advocacy and a real voice in an effective enforcement body.
	It hopes that the commission will follow that path. The DRC's emphasis is important. As I said, it welcomed the main proposals but said that the Government's proposal for at least one disabled commissioner and a disability committee for at least five years should be widely debated in the House before the Bill is enacted, if only to answer the questions: why five years, and why impose a limit at all? Those are fair questions, and I endorse them.
	The DRC generally welcomes both the wide enforcement powers at the disposal of the commission for equality and human rights and the remit to promote and investigate human rightsas far as it goes. Many Members on both sides of the House want it to go further. The new provisions to counter discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in relation to goods, services and facilities, and the new duty for the public sector to promote gender equality are welcome, too. They certainly represent progress.
	The DRC supports a single measure on equality, and I welcome the intervention by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). He made an important point, representing a view that is widely shared. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may not have had time to respond in detail, but perhaps the Government's position will be expressed with greater clarity in the wind-up, not least because of what we read in the excellent Library note. Library briefings are always good, but Vincent Keter has done a superb job on the Equality Bill. He refers to the TUC. Indeed, I shall simply quote what the TUC said:
	In the interests of social justice and fairness, a single equality act should establish high and consistent standards of protection across all equality areas. A single equality body established without the full statutory backing of fair, comprehensive and transparent equality legislation would lack authority and have trouble dealing with the expectations of different interest groups.
	That is also the view of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Angela Eagle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is also Labour party policy? The policy forum was of that opinion when it met last year, and that opinion was subsequently agreed at last year's conference.

Tom Clarke: I am delighted, as always, to be reminded by my hon. Friend of the importance of Labour party policy formulation.
	Before I deal with another aspect of the Library paper to which I have referred, I should like to ask whether copies of the Billor rather, in due course, the Actwill be made available promptly in the full range of accessible formats, so that people with all sorts of disability can have access to it. The Government are committed to a more inclusive society, as the Bill shows. They have an excellent record in challenging discrimination and prejudice across the board. That, too, is reflected in the Bill. I urge them to confirm yet again the importance of enforcement, promotion and a robust commitment to the human rights remit.
	I should like to refervery briefly, as other hon. Members want to speakto the other aspect of the Library paper. In respect of disability, it refers to the hierarchy of equality and expresses the view that some groups have been left with less protection than others. I believe that to be the case, and I believe that it is wrong. We should seek to put it right.
	The Library paper says that the equality commission will amplify the impact of discrimination legislation and promote equality. It rightly talks about employment, which is crucial if people with disabilities are to make progress and gain the feeling that they are a very important part of our society, respected and encouraged to achieve their full potential.
	The Disability Discrimination Bill rightly addresses goods and services issues, but we have not been as specific as the disability organisations would like, especially in relation to transport issues. I certainly take the view that, although we have made tremendous progress under this Government, some public bodies might be encouraged to reflect the disability awareness that we have accepted in the House.
	I should like to give an example, without, I hope, being at all patronising. Today, I decided to ring Mencapone of the many wonderful organisations involved in this fieldand the young woman who answered the phone has learning disabilities. I simply wish to say that there are many public bodies whose personnel could well emulate the absolutely charming, helpful and efficient way in which that young lady did her duties, and it is that sort of approach that we want to encourage.
	I referred in an earlier intervention to the Government's thinking about Scotland. I welcome what they have to say about Scotland, and in particular, the links that they have already established with the Scottish Executive, with the proposal for a Scottish representative on the commission and the encouraging of an annual report to the Scottish Parliament. I welcome that very much, as long as it is consistent with the commission itself. We will provide resources and staffing so that the commission has the best possible professionalism and advice to allow it to make the kind of report that that Parliamentand this Parliament, for our interestsis entitled to receive.
	I have spoken about disability, but I know that the Bill embraces other aspects of human rights, which I welcome. For example, it adds to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Mr. Speaker has arranged a reception tomorrow evening at which my good friend Lord Morris of Manchester will be the principal guest, and it is right for that Act to be honoured 35 years on.
	Next Monday11 Aprilis the 19th anniversary of the Third Reading of my private Member's Bill that became the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Yesterday, I was delighted to be in the Chamber to hear moving tributes to the late Lord Callaghan. I remember that on the day when we tried to get that Bill through, as I sat under the clock showing the customary humility that the House would expect, Jim Callaghan appeared and stood at the Bar. I understood that he had travelled from Cardiff that day to ensure that we had a quorum for the vote so that we could get the Bill through, which we did. I would dearly have loved the advocacy aspects of the Act to have been implemented. I pray for that even today, and hope that when the Equality Bill is enacted in due course, as I passionately believe that it should be, there will not be the delay in implementation that other Acts have experienced.
	The Bill is welcome and noble. Whatever the differences that we will demonstrate over the coming weeksI will play my part in debating themI think that it reflects the basic commitment of the British people to a civilised society, which is reflected by the Government's policy on such important matters.

Malcolm Bruce: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), whose record of campaigning on disability issues, especially, is perhaps unrivalled in the House. I have been happy to support him on several occasions. He gave an eloquent testimony to the reasons why he supports the Bill and how he has come to arrive at that point.
	Before I go into the details of our support for the Bill, may I apologise, especially to the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, for the fact that I will have to leave just before the end of the debate, although no discourtesy is intended? I am pleased to say that she will know that although I have several comments to make about the Bill, my party certainly supports it and regrets, in one sense, that our debate is only a rehearsal for proceedings that will presumably take place in the fairly near future and follow through to the Bill's enactment.
	The very title of the Bill seems to encapsulate how we have turned round 180 in our approach to these issues. It is not an anti-discrimination Bill, but an equality Bill, which represents a fundamental change of approach. Indeed, although I noticed that the Joint Committee described clause 3 as being more like a party manifesto than a piece of legislation, the provision nevertheless makes it clear that the Bill is hugely aspirational, with the intention of promoting equality rather than giving people the means of dealing with discrimination. After all, the opportunity to deal with discrimination comes only after the event if the law gives one rights to protest against it. The Bill is an attempt to give people legal rights so that they are equal in the first place. That is a fundamentally different approach.
	Reading through the submissions that we have received, I was interested to see that, whatever their initial reaction, the overwhelming majority of organisations are now pretty well on board, although some have made supplementary comments on what is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the legislation's application in Scotland. Even those of us who represent Scottish constituencies appreciate the fact that the Bill addresses the differences between the roles of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, but I hope that when the Bill is enacted and the commission is established some clarification will be made available, otherwise people in Scotland might be confused about where to turn for support. I am sure that that can be done.
	In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I raised what will be the main thrust of my speech, which is my hope that a single equality Act will deal effectively with the hierarchy of equality, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned. In the past, we have addressed different aspects of equality in a piecemeal fashion through different pieces of legislation, with the result that the various aspects are perceived to be of different degrees of importance. That is why the disability rights organisations, for example, were concerned and suggested thatin a sense as a gesturethe Bill should provide for a person who is or has been disabled to be on the commission. In reality, it is inconceivable that the commission will not represent and promote the interests of disabled people. The issue will not be whether a person has been disabled, but what is done to ensure that disabled people's rights and opportunities are promoted to the full.
	At this point, let me make a small special plea, as I tend to do on occasions such as this, as chairman of the all-party group on deafness, which has been established in the past year. There is a range of disabilities, each of which brings different needs. We have not set up the all-party group on deafness to detach ourselves from the general campaign on disability rights. We simply acknowledge that there are discrete issues of particular concern to deaf people that need to be addressed separately, while continuing to support and to work in full co-operation with other groups.
	I welcomed the Department for Work and Pensions' recognition of sign language, which took place within the past couple of years. It was nicely publicised as the Government giving official recognition to British sign language; in fact, it was the Department doing so and I have not seen anything comparable from other Departments, such as the Department for Education and Skills. My serious point is that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is determining what type of legal instrument can be added to the European convention on human rights to give sign language users the recognition that has been given to users of other minority languages. It is worth putting on record the fact that in the UK there are more users of British or Irish sign language than speakers of Welsh or Gaelic, yet the resources that the latter two languages attract are probably 50 times as great as those that go to sign language. Although I welcome the DWP initiative, it is only a drop in the ocean of what is needed to enable sign language users to use their language fully in the wide range of circumstances to which clause 3 refers. I hope that the commission recognises that it should take a proactive approach to that issue.
	Having put that on the record, I shall get down from my soapbox and address the mechanics of the Bill and its proposals. Several of the groups that made representations have argued the case for a single equality Act. The Equal Opportunities Commission supported that case particularly well, saying that if the new body is to be effective, it must be backed up by a consistent legal framework, be able to fulfil a full range of roles, be organised and resourced to work effectively in Scotland and Wales as well as in England and Great Britain, and be able to deal effectively with each of the equality strands and with human rights. It also has to be properly resourced.
	I do not disagree with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), in that it is legitimate for the following question to be asked and for the Government to spell out the answer. They do not have to do so today. It is: why will the new body cost 70 million as opposed to the current cost of 43 million? I hope that there are good reasons for this, because the aspiration is to do a great deal more. A little more information about why this will be the case and how the distribution will take place would give us some comfort that the extra cost will be because of the reach of the new legislation and not because of an expanding bureaucracy.
	The Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and I recently spoke at a CBI conference on diversity. It is worth noting that at that conference Sir Digby Jones of the CBI said that the organisation supported the Bill and the representations that had given support to the Bill, but then expressed many reservations about the detailed application and regulations that may flow from it. I hope that the Government will recognise that a single equality Act should reassure the likes of the CBI that it would bring together and simplify legislation and regulation rather than make it more complicated. That, fundamentally, is the objective.

Eleanor Laing: I agree with so much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I understand that his party has undertaken completely to get rid of the Department of Trade and Industry. If the Liberal Democrats are in Government in six weeks' time, how will he administer the very good points that he is making now?

Malcolm Bruce: The mechanisms for delivering policy and particular Ministers are matters for judgment. Our view is that it is perfectly possible for this matter to be dealt with in another Departmentfor example, the Home Office. I understand that the DTI, partly because of the second nature of the Secretary of State, is also the Department for equality, but it is slightly odd that the Bill has been promoted by the DTI. People might worry that it was more narrowly drafted because of that and confined to economic issues when, I am glad to say, it was not. The Bill runs much more widely than the DTI. It reaches throughout society, as it rightly and properly should. It is just a convenience of current Government organisation that it happens to be coming from the DTI.
	I reinforce another point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. On the impact of the proposed legislation on businessI reiterate that it has a much wider impact than businessit is important that the needs of small and medium-sized businesses be particularly represented. With the greatest respect to the Government, there is sometimes a tendency to think that if they have spoken to the CBI, they have the voice of business. Big business has an agenda and a capacity to respond that are different from small and medium-sized businesses'. I hope that that will be taken firmly on board.
	The main case is for a single equality Act. Current legislation has grown up piecemeal over the years. I am advised that there are currently 30 Acts, 38 statutory instruments, 11 codes of practice and 12 EC directives and recommendations relevant to the areas and activities of the proposed new commission. That is a difficult mix of areas for people to take account of. As has been said, there are anomalies within the existing system. If someone is being discriminated against because they are Jewish or a Sikh, they can have recourse to the law. If, however, that is happening to someone and they are Muslim, currently they do not have that recourse. An equality Act can deal with that simply and straightforwardly.
	The bringing together of equality and human rights is absolutely right in principle and in practice. It is often forgotten that the UK is not only an early signatory to the European convention on human rights, but that largely we wrote it. It is not some form of alien European imposition. The convention was drawn up largely by British lawyers in the aftermath of the war and the Nazi occupation to create a framework of fundamental rights to which all countries that had been engaged in the war could sign up. We might tend to think that we were providing the convention to the occupied, defeated and liberated nations of Europe out of magnanimity, and that it somehow did not apply to us. However, we wrote it in our own terms and we signed up to it.
	The Conservatives talk glibly about the possibility of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. I saw the Leader of the Opposition looking somewhat uncomfortable when challenged on this point recently. When he was asked whether he was going to renege on our commitment to the European convention on human rights, he said no. I should remind the Conservatives that when we signed up to the convention in 1953, we also undertook to incorporate it in our domestic law, although it took us nearly 50 years to do so. It is really disconcerting to hear the Conservatives suggesting that they might go back on that fundamental part of our treaty obligations. The Human Rights Act gave British citizens the right to take human rights cases to the domestic courts, rather than having to incur the expense and delay of taking them to Strasbourg.

Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point entirely. Is he aware that that message is going through many people's letter boxes in direct mailings from the Conservatives even as we speak, despite the fact that their Front-Bench spokesman feels uncomfortable about it? What does the hon. Gentleman make of that phenomenon?

Malcolm Bruce: The Conservatives' entire campaign is dishonest. I am glad to say that I do not believe that they have any intention of withdrawing from the European convention on human rights. I am not even sure that they seriously intend to repeal the Human Rights Act. However, they want to lead people to believe that they could do so, without confronting the real issues. Indeed, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made a reasoned and considered case for his party's supporting this Bill.
	This is a British piece of legislation that the Government have introduced after consultation to put in place a much more detailed development of human rights and equality which will, I hope, go substantially beyond the basics of the European convention on human rights. Indeed, the Joint Committee, while expressing some concern that there might be areas of conflict or uncertainty, was quite clear that the general objective was to develop and enhance equality and human rights in the United Kingdom, above and beyond the provisions of the European convention, to meet the needs of our own societies.
	Reservations were expressed by many of the organisations that will be affected by the creation of the equality commission. Perhaps a climate of vested interests is created when people have worked with their own equality commission. They might have reservations about its being merged with a greater organisation. However, to be fair to the Government, they have clearly persuaded people that the added weight and value of combining all these aspects will be beneficial. Speaking as a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, I can say that that organisation certainly welcomes the single commission approach.
	I reiterate my party's view, which has been much more eloquently argued by my noble friend Lord Lester, who, regardless of politics, is regarded as one of the finest human rights lawyers in the country. He has attempted to introduce his own Bill on a single equality commission, and I hope that that was seen as a serious endeavour to put a framework in place. The Government have suggested that their own review is designed to lead in that direction. I do not concur with the view that we should delay the setting up of a single commission, and I would emphasise the urgency involved. We must not rush into this, but we must ensure that a single equality Act is introduced sooner rather than later. If not, the single commission will spend an awful lot of time dealing with an inadequate collection of piecemeal laws. Those could quickly be put to one side once we had clearer, simpler legislation.
	I commend the Bill. As I said earlier, a fundamental approach to promoting equality rather than dealing with discrimination represents a radical and welcome shift that should greatly enhance the quality of life of every minoritywe are all minorities at some stage or anotherthat could conceivably be discriminated against, and give them the backing and resources to create, as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said, a civilised society that is tolerant and inclusive.

Helen Jackson: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I especially appreciated his important reference to deafness, which made the point that the political will to move strongly on equality makes a difference to every form of discrimination on the ground of disability.
	It also gives me great pleasure to contribute to the debate on the day that the general election has been called. I am proud to be a member of a political party that has had equality and fairness at the core of its constitution and principles since the day that it was founded more than 100 years ago. Despite some people's grumbles, equality remains at its core. Every Labour Government have made significant progress on equality and this Government have made huge progress, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out in her speech. Although I do not expect the Bill to go through all its stages in the next two days, I hope that it becomes the centrepiece of the third term of a Labour Government.
	I praise the way in which consultation prior to the Bill's publication has been managed to gain the backing of all the relevant organisations. I pay tribute to Ministers and their team on undertaking careful consultation and gathering support so that our discussion is consensual on this important day. However, I want to utter some words of caution. In my experience, when one mentions equality and human rights, it is easy to get uncontroversial supportthere is no problem. It is also easy to urge public and private bodies to make progress. It gets harder and controversy begins when we move towards insisting that public and private bodies implement standards of equality and human rights. It becomes harder still and more controversial when we pass legislation that insists that public and private bodies and individuals respect specific standards of equality and human rights. It becomes even harder and much more controversial when we start to penalise public authorities or private bodies for not conforming to the standards that we have set.
	At the heart of taking any of those actions is the first step of establishing a system whereby we know what is happening and progress is monitored. That aspect becomes controversial and difficult with the realisation that it will be effective only with the support of sufficient resources, teeth, clout, legislation and political determination. The system has to be clear and firm and have resources. With the greatest respect for both Opposition spokesmen, when they were pressed on financial aspects, the response was woolly. I have absolute confidence that the Labour party is determined to put the resources behind this important legislation.
	The Bill is on the right track because it recognises the need for legislation, encompasses the entire breadth of disability and sets out a system for implementation. When I was active on Sheffield city council and, in the mid-1980s, we reached the first stage of controversy by appointing our first equalities officer, we were told that it was a great waste of money by our then opposition. They were even more horrified when that equalities officer recommended that there should be a women's training workshop on information technology. There was a huge fuss and enormous opposition. How on earth did we know, as a council, that there was any call for a women's training workshop on information technology? Bizarrely, we did know, but even more bizarrely, by the end of the week when this was on the front page of the newspapers, the relevant council department had had 2,000 applications for the women's information technology workshop, which was only a subject for council debate at that stage. Often, therefore, it is important to be ahead of the game, in each area of disability, to recognise the need to move to legislation. We then find that such a move was crucial for a large number of people or a minority.
	We must recognise, of course, that equality is a dream, a goal or target that we never reach. We say that every baby is born equal, but of course that is not the case. The life chances and expectancies of all of us are grossly unequal. We must also recognise the international dimension, which was brought home to my family recently when one of my grandsons was born with a defective heart. After intensive surgery at one week old, which was successful, he is now at home, six weeks old and quite well. He is probably among the 1 per cent. of the world's population for whom such intensive surgery at seven days old can be successful. The idea, therefore, that equality for every individual can be easily achieved is nonsense. Nobody would approach the international context without recognising that.
	That brings me to my next point, as the only reason that baby Seamus is still with us is that we have a national health service that is free, open and accessible to every individual, at least in this country. Having a public service that is open, free, accessible and of world-class standards is one of the most important pieces of equality legislation that any Government can pass. That is the same in every area. Everyone recognises that we cannot even start to get near achieving the millennium development goal of every child in the world achieving equal access to education unless there is free primary education. That is a law of equality in itself.
	I was pleased to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest in the run-up to the election that each and every pensioner will have free bus travel, which is particularly relevant to me, as I am shortly to enjoy that, in good measure.
	Every area of legislation has an equality aspect, whether in relation to housing, transport, education or health. In relation to housing, the equality aspect might be accessibility or ease of getting around the house. It is impressive that this Bill has been put together with the co-operation of and contributions from every Department. We talk a great deal about Governments being too parcelled up when it comes to legislation, but this is a good example of legislation to which that does not apply.
	Breadth and scope are important, and I want to say more about the Northern Ireland experience. An important aspect of the peace process was the funding regime from Brussels, the European peace and reconciliation programme. The then Commissioner Wulff-Matthies included in that programme criteria according to which every penny of the money had to be spent. It was a partnership action for fair treatment: every item of expenditure had to meet standards of equality, or the money would not be released from Brussels. The partnership boards did not just include people on both sides of the sectarian dividethere was an equality balance in terms of gender, of race where appropriate, and of disability. The whole range of equality was encompassed to defuse the specific inequality issue about which people in Northern Ireland felt so strongly.
	There was considerable debate in Northern Ireland about the proposal for a single equality commission. People naturally feared that it would weaken the individual commissions dealing with gender, race and other aspects of inequality. In fact, the emphasis on a single commission strengthens each inequality issue and strengthens the anti-discrimination agenda in each area.
	We have seen that closer to home in our party. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the Representation of the People Act 2000, which we produced after a huge amount of discussion in our partyand a very important piece of legislation it is, applying as it does to all political parties. Now the issue of racial imbalance in this Parliament is being raised in the party far more strongly than ever before and we are considering action to redress that imbalance. Once progress has been made in one respect, we can raise our sights in the case of all the other aspects of inequality. I would say that the equality agenda in the last Parliament led to pressure for successful legislation on, for instance, same-sex couples.
	As was said earlier, the Bill's establishment of a single commission will make further legislation urgent and essential. I should be very surprised, and a little disappointed, if the legislation that follows is not a little controversial, and does not push the boat further than every Member may wish.
	I finish by giving three warnings. First, everything in the Bill is about individuals. Clause 8(2) defines equality as being equality between individuals. That is the right way to go, but it is sometimes in conflict with people being defined not as individuals but as part of a household. The future role of pensioners and pensions is an issue that many of us have been concerned to pursue in the House, and I believe that important legislation on it will be introduced in the next Parliament. For far too long, women pensioners in particular have been seen as part of a household or a couple and, therefore, as being more dependent than men, who are assumed to have been in full-time employment, and not as worthy of financial reward for the effort and workof whatever typethat they have put in during their lives. I hope that the Bill will set the scene for women pensioners and potential pensioners being given that status in their own right, so that women's work will be valued and women pensioners will get a better balance of income. At the moment, it is appallingly unbalanced.
	My second warning to Ministers concerns universal legislation and choice. I have mentioned those areas of universal legislation that in my view form part of inequality legislation because they apply to everyone. The issue of choice must be carefully considered, as must league tables that encourage us to say, Are we up here or down there? Is ours a very good school or not? Are we doing well or not? Is this a hospital in which people might die more easily than in another? In considering such choices, we must be careful that we do not undermine some of the basic principles of equality that we want to pursue.
	My third warning is that we must make sure that the commission and the legislation arising from it have strong, sharp, powerful teeth. When controversial issues arise that challenge accepted norms and assumptions of behaviour, there must be a strong recognition of the need to be absolutely clear that the equality agenda leads many other important agendas that any Government might want to pursue to produce a better society. I hope that, when our political leaders go out campaigning today and in the weeks ahead, they ensure equality is up there with the economy, education and the other big issues. I say that unashamedly, because Labour has a superb record on equality. If that record is presented frequently, powerfully and consistently, there is no doubt that we will have not just a third term of government, but a fourth, a fifth and perhaps many more. So let us put the Bill in the Queen's Speech and make it the No. 1 priority for the next election and the essential flagship of Labour's third term.

John Bercow: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), whoaside from the triumphalism towards the end of her speechspoke authoritatively and movingly from her own experience in family terms and her experience culled from her work in Northern Ireland. I respect her passionate commitment to equality. Knowing that the hon. Lady is not seeking re-election to the House, I wish her every success and happiness in what she goes on to do.
	I welcome the Bill. I believe that it is a good measure that deserves support. Let the background to the Bill's introduction be clearly understood. Inequality before the law, prejudice and discrimination are still commonplace features of our society and we have the responsibility not to look the other way, but to seek to attack those inequalities, that discrimination and that prejudice. The Bill is by no means the only way ofachieving that. Everything cannot be achieved through legislation, but legislation has an important contribution to make in tackling the prevalent negative attitudes and stereotypes, tackling tendencies to caricature people to disadvantage and in conducing to an atmosphere and culture in which we respect each other.
	What it is really about is equality before the law and the principle of social justice. As far as I am concerned, that means that every individual, irrespective of race, sex, disability or sexual orientation, is entitled to be treated by his or her fellows with respect and to be granted equal protection by the law. That is a statement that I confidently make on the Floor of the House today, and it is a point that I shall reiterate time and again in the period lying immediately ahead. Each and every one of us can do only his or her bit in trying to tackle discrimination, to undermine the causes of prejudice and to promote social justice. In the course of this Parliament, I have attempted to promote what I believe to be the right course, with my voice and my voteand I intend to go on doing so.
	I welcome the opening speech of the Secretary of State and I would like to focus on a number of the Bill's aspects. First, on the major proposal to establish a commission for equality and human rights, the background was rehearsed by the Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). The case for it is compelling, indeed.
	At the moment and of long standing, we have had three commissions to address particular types of discrimination: the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission. Each draws its powers and exercises its functions courtesy of a number of different pieces of legislation. I believe that the intended creation of the new body should in no way suggestMinisters will not allow it to do sothat the record of those three organisations is anything other than excellent.
	The reality is, however, that those bodies have had responsibilities to deal with sex discrimination, race discrimination and disability discrimination. In discharging their responsibilities, they have had a budget of something in the order of 45 million a year. When I last looked into it, the figures for 2002 showed that those bodies were undertaking about 4,400 cases and the respective websites of the three anti-discrimination bodies were taking about 75,000 hits per month. They have been extremely busy; they have had a great deal to do; they have done exceptionally well.
	It is important to recognise that those bodies' responsibility was to deal with only three, albeit three very important, types of discrimination. The Government are proposing, consistent with the findings of the review and with consultation held over a long period, that new strands be introduced. If they are to be introduced and if we are to attack religious discrimination or discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and if we are to afford equal protection to transgendered people as well, the casestrong in any casefor a merger of those anti-discrimination bodies becomes, frankly, overwhelming. The creation of three more commissions will mean that six different commissions will exist. The potential for overlap in their strands of work, and for duplication, waste of resources, misunderstanding and conflict, would be preposterous, so the Government's proposals in the Bill make obvious sense. I also very much welcome the robust and supportive terms with which the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, greeted the Government's proposal to establish the commission for equality and human rights.
	However, the argument for the new commission is not simply about minimising duplication. It is stronger than that, as the commission has multiple merits. It will have the opportunity to work as a champion for equality and human rights, and to provide a single focus for the articulation of the important message that we must change our society's values and culture.Moreover, the commission will be able to tackle the multiple discrimination suffered by many people. The tendency has been to think that people who suffer discrimination are, for instance, women, members of ethnic minorities or disabled, or that they have a gay sexual orientation. In fact, it is possible that a person might suffer from several different forms of discrimination and inequality. That person should be able to turn to what will prove to be a one-stop shop. The establishment of the commission will streamline the service and provide a single and unified source of information, advice and guidance.
	That one-stop shop will be good for individuals, and that is important, but it will also be good for public authorities and private businesses. They will not have to consult a multiplicity of different pieces of legislation but will be able to take advice from one body. In due course, I shall say something about having a single piece of legislation in this area, but the commission will have the virtue of being the only body offering guidance. That seems to me to make a great deal of sense, and the argument for the establishment of the commission is therefore positive and powerful.
	Secondly, I want to say something about the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. I welcome that, but it does not apply to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. That is regrettable, but I suspect that the Government would argue that they cannot be expected to do everything in one Bill.
	The Government may also take the view that such legislation should be adopted on the basis of slowly, slowly, catchee monkee. After all, outposts of prejudice, discrimination and diehard neanderthal resistance remain, and must be countered over a period. Everything cannot be done at once, but I believe that we need to get our ducks in order in respect of equality.
	Stonewall has made the case for a similar prohibition of discrimination in the provision of goods and services to gay people. That is an intelligent argument, and I believe that the same case will be made again and again. I welcome what has been said about religion and belief, but we should look at extending the provisions. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) will echo that commitment. I look forward to the next Conservative Government having the opportunity to introduce a robust piece of legislation along those lines.
	Thirdly, I want to say something about the duty to promote equality. As I understand it, that duty is to promote equality between men and women. It is extremely welcome, but it does not apply to people who suffer discrimination on grounds of age or sexual orientation. Therefore, if we are not careful and delay for too long, another injustice will be created. I warmly welcome the duty to promote gender equality. It is fair to say that some concerns have been expressed, not so much about what the Bill says on the subject, but about areas that are still uncovered and questions that remain unanswered. Specifically, I should like to elicit from the Government a comment on the harassment suffered by women. I know that the Equal Opportunities Commission has raised the matter. The elimination of harassment seems a fairly basic and prosaic demand. To my knowledgeI am not a lawyer, and I say that as a matter of prideit is not provided for in the terms of the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister would be open to amendments on this front in Standing Committee, but we ought to be told.
	Other issues related to the promotion of gender equality need to be addressed. I remember taking part in a stimulating debate in Westminster Hall on 25 June 2003 with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on the subject of the gender pay gap. That gap is real. The Government are doing what they can to tackle it, but I think the Minister would admit that a great deal of work remains to be done. Studying the terms of the Bill, I am not clear whether the provisions on the promotion of gender equality will allow for or, better still, require public authorities to conduct pay reviews and tackle pay discrimination when it is clear from those reviews that such discrimination exists. It is not referred to, so far as I can tell, in the Bill. It is a genuine concern of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
	Incidentally, in this context, tributes have rightly been paid to people responsible for the introduction of the legislation. Those tributes should properly be paid to members of the Government and officials who have assisted in the drafting of the Bill. At the EOC I pay particular tribute to Julie Mellor and Sam Smethers, who have done magnificent work in championing the cause over a long period. Some right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that I have taken a particular interest in the issue of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. In that context, I cannot think of two more persistent and effective lobbyists in any organisation in Britain than Ben Summerskill and Alan Wardle. Their work ought to be acknowledged and I hope it will be eloquently championed by Members in all parts of the House. The EOC has raised important issues, which I hope the Minister will address in her winding-up speech.
	There is some concern in the EOC that sections 55 and 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 are not replicated in the Bill. There are specific powers under those sections that allow the EOC to review health and safety requirements as they can affect, for example, cases of pregnant women in employment. Similarly, I think I am right in saying from memory that section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act gives powers to the EOC to pursue strategic cases against recalcitrant employers who persistently behave badly and then typically, as a commercial tactic, settle out of court before the heat in the kitchen becomes unbearable.
	As I understand it, under present law, relying on the 1975 Act, the EOC has been emboldened over a long period to pursue cases. There is a concern that that power might not exist under the Bill. If that were so, notwithstanding the commitment that the Government have made to ensure a direct transfer of powers and functions, it would necessarily follow that the EOC would be in a relatively diminished position. I very much hope that that is not the case. The Minister might well be able to reassure me. She knows very well that I approach these matters in a non-partisan spirit, and I would go so far as to say that I would dance round the mulberry bush in celebration if she were able to tell me that my concern was unfounded. However, on the basis of a cursory perusal of the terms of the Bill, I think my concerns have some grounds.
	The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench repeatedly and powerfully made the case for a single equality Act, and I welcome his comments. We cannot entirely anticipateit would be premature to do sothe findings of the equalities review and the discrimination law review. That said, we have a lot of evidence to study. There is a good intellectual argument for saying that if the work of a number of commissions is to be brought together into one commission, there is a certain logical coherence, if not inevitability, about having a single equality Act from which the powers, functions and, dare I say it, the comportment, culture and language of the new body should flow. I use those terms advisedly and with some force. The terms of the Bill are one thing; the way in which they are applied, the enthusiasm with which the tasks are embraced and the sense of understanding and rapprochement between the different equality strands are of the essence in translating aspiration into reality.
	The hon. Member for Gordon made the point with some passion; I shall do so slightly differently. If memory serves me correctly, we currently have in equality and anti-discrimination legislation no fewer than 35 Acts, 52 statutory instruments, 13 codes of practice, three codes of guidance and 16 European directives and recommendations. I was not a competent mathematician at school, but I believe that that adds up to no fewer than 119 pieces of legislation or guidance flowing from this House or the European Union appertaining to equality and anti-discrimination. Given that an important part of the thrust of the motivation behind the Bill is to ensure that there is coherence, intelligibility, simplicity and focus in public policy, it seems that it is not wildly prescient but merely averagely discerning to suspect that the outcome of the equalities review and discrimination law review will be a commitment from the Government, whatever party that may be, to introduce a single equality Act.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is making an eloquent and powerful case and I would like his advice. Does he believe that we should await the findings of those two reviews before moving forward to one consolidated piece of legislation, or would that be a mistake and should we move forward and set up the commission in the first instance?

John Bercow: My view is that we should proceed with the commission for equality and human rights. I do not believe that it is necessary to await the outcome of the reviews, because the proposal to introduce the Bill was decided on the powerful and compelling evidence of unsatisfactory practice before the decision to establish those reviews was taken.
	The outcome of the reviews may be invaluable in informing the legislative framework and bolstering the effectiveness of the commission but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk and other right hon. and hon. Members know, there is a tendency to inertia under any Government or, alternatively and sometimes as well, there is a tendency to have too many pieces of legislation and too little time in which to introduce them. My strong preference is to press on with the Bill while we have the momentum.
	Our support for the Bill should be unequivocal. I was extremely appreciative of what my hon. Friend said. He did not sit on the fence and there was no question of on the one hand and on the other hand. He rightly expressed reservations from the Front Bench about specific clauses and asked sensible and proper questions, but his clarion call for decisive action could not be bettered by anyone in the House. I pay tribute to him for his commitment. Indeed, he and I have often talked about which of us is the modernising Conservative. I have always tended to say that I am and that I am seeking to persuade him to join me in that cause, but today he was superb. We are all modernisers now; we all want a modernised, successful Conservative party, in government after the election, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) as Prime Minister.
	I want to conclude on an issue that has been touched on and which cannot be disregarded. It is business involvementI use the term advisedlywith the new commission and business reaction to the legislation. There is a fine balance. Everybody these days talks about the importance of better regulation, light-touch regulation and sensitive regulation. I agree with that: my view is that regulation should be relatively light touch in the sense that it should not impede the successful operation of legitimate and fair-minded business. On the other hand, it cannot be so light touch as, frankly, to undermine the very purpose of, and rationale behind, the introduction of the Bill in the first place.
	I started by saying, quite categorically, that I thought there was a problem and that it needed to be addressed. The notion, sometimes rather vulgarly popularised in the more down-market red-top tabloids, that prejudice does not really exist and is just the politically correct plaything of politicians of the left has to be decisively challenged and countered. That discrimination is there. Sometimes people suffer in silence because they do not know how they are to secure redress, do not think that they will be heard or do not know where to go. Discrimination and disadvantage exist, and we have to be prepared to tackle them.
	What we cannot allow is a regime so minimalist that the noble aspirations of the Bill are not given effect in practice. It has to be light touch, but clear and firm. In the best spirit, I suggest to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who, I hope, will occupy the Minister's post in a matter of weeks, that the principle that should guide public policy here is quite straightforward. The commission on equality and human rights, in dealing with businesses, should be the friend of the willing but uninitiated and the foe of the wilfully non-compliant and incorrigibly discriminatory. I cannot put it more simply than that.
	I have often argued for exemptions from legislation for relatively small businesses. I do not think that that approach would work in this context. The point has been made, and rightly, that more than 99 per cent. of businesses in this country are smallmore than 99 per cent. employ fewer than 100 people. They account for somewhat over 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, and last time I looked they generated well in excess of two fifths of our national output. In other words, most businesses are small. We cannot simply say in matters of equality, good practice and human rights that they are to be exempt from requirements that will apply to larger businesses and to public authorities.
	We have a duty to try to ensure that we are sensitive, that we are not unduly adversarial, that we work with and try to bring the best out of agencies that are trying to do the right thing. But on the principles of equality, of respect and of human rights, there cannot and should not be a compromise.
	I welcome the Bill, and I am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak in support of it. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk on his passionate and effective contribution to our proceedings.

Linda Perham: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is the first and last of the great modernisers in the Conservative party.
	I, too, welcome the Bill and I wish to focus on the measures aimed at tackling age discrimination, on which I have campaigned since I was elected in 1997. In fact, I was fortunate enough to be drawn ninth in my first private Member's Bill ballot and I introduced a Bill on age discrimination in employment advertisements. Unfortunately, the Government did not support it, but it did lead to the code of practice on age diversity, which has now become the Age Positive programme, so I am very pleased about that.
	When I introduced that Bill in 1998, I remember the word complex being used about any issues to do with age. I also remember that when my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) was in the relevant position, she, too, used that word when speaking to the all-party group on ageing and older peopleof which I have the honour of being secretaryabout the Age Equality Commission Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) was trying to introduce in November 2001.
	It is disappointing to me that age is the last strand of implementation of the EC directive on equality and employment; it is three years on from the other two strands that were required to be introduced under the directive. This Bill sets in motion the establishment of the commission, which will, at last, include age.
	I am delighted, as is the Equal Opportunities Commission, that the Bill proposes a duty for public bodies to promote gender equality. The EOC says that it is the
	most radical change in sex equality law for 30 years.
	However, there is still no duty to promote age equality, when such a provision will now exist for gender, disability and race. The other main omission as far as the age focus is concerned is the protection against discrimination in goods, facilities and services, which I raised in an intervention with the Secretary of State. Part 2, which is quite extensive, extends the protection against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. Why does the provision not extend to age? I know that the Bill cannot cover everything, but older people have even less time to wait than others.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular shortage of skills and expertise in several areas and that now is a good time to encourage older people back into work, to make use of the experience and expertise that they have? She has pursued the issue vigorously for many years. Does she agree that now is an opportune time, when unemployment is so low and there are so many job opportunities, to make a positive effort to get those people back into work?

Linda Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; he is a man after my own heart on this matter. There is a great cohort of people in their later years who have a big contribution to make and, in fact, they outnumber younger people. Employers would do well to recognise the talents of those older people.
	As I was saying, part 2 extends the protection against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. Clause 56 mentions discrimination in advertisements, which returns us to the Bill that I tried to introduce seven years agobut I was addressing age discrimination. Older people are demonstrably discriminated against in financial services, including insurance of all sorts, in travel, in car hire, in civic life, where magistrates and jurors have to retire at 70, and in social care, where people who are disabled and over 65 cannot apply for mobility and independent living allowance. There is discrimination in health care. I campaigned with Age Concern to extend the invitation for breast cancer screening to those aged up to 70. I think that the statistics still show that women between the ages of 70 and 74 are most in danger of contracting and dying from breast cancer. Also, I know that we are not within the jurisdiction of the Holy See, but cardinals over the age of 80 are not allowed to vote in the papal elections.

Angela Eagle: Disgraceful.

Linda Perham: My hon. Friend says, disgraceful. I just threw that in as a topical example of age discrimination, although not one in this country.
	I hope that the discrimination law review, which is being mentioned by the Secretary of State and others, will assess how anti-discrimination legislation can be modernised to fit the needs of Britain in the 21st century and that it will examine those injustices.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) alluded to the number of older people who could make a contribution. More than a third of our population is over 50, including many Members of this place and even more in the other place. Age discrimination in all its forms could affect all of us. The Bill takes a huge step in raising awareness of the need to challenge inequality and to promote human rights for older people.
	My support for and belief in fairness and opportunity for all motivate me to serve my constituents and represent them in this place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned basic moral beliefs as a defining principle. I am proud to agree, and I am proud that a Labour Government are introducing the Bill.

Tim Boswell: Like every Member who has spoken in the debate so far, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) made a helpful and thoughtful contribution to our proceedings. As she has done throughout her parliamentary career, she emphasised the particular concerns of older people. When one considers only the political merits of the measure, as some of us will be doing in the weeks to come, it is interesting that the emphasis has been not so much on older people as on some other aspects of discrimination. I make no qualitative judgment about that, I merely mention it.
	What has struck me about the debate is that we are talking about an argument whose time has come. Its consequences are irreversible and that is much to be welcomed. It will be reflected on the slate of candidates that my party is putting forward, some in very winnable seats, at the general election. There will be much greater diversity on our Benches, which may translate to the other side of the House when we come back. I am delighted about that diversity. It is an index not merely of a party that has changed its views and habits but of a much wider national commitment to changes that need to take place. We all welcome them.
	It would be difficult for a Member to come into the Chamber and say that they were against equality. I can certainly tell the House that I am not against equality, but we need to flesh out why we support it and the nature of our enthusiasm, as well as any qualifications that we may have. I am glad that the Bill has received universal support. A strong argument in its favour is that it has been highly consultative and there will inevitably, due to the election timetable, be more consultation to come. Had the Bill been introduced on the back of a bright idea from the Institute of Public Policy Research two or three years ago and rushed through as some legislation has been, it would not have commanded the same degree of authoritative support.
	The Bill's support is also due to the considerable work that has been done in a process of dialogue with various stakeholders, including the three equality commissions. I think particularly of my experience with the DRC, to which the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) was kind enough to refer earlier. I began as a sceptic about the DRC, but I leave this Parliament as an enthusiast for its achievements. Conscious of its special role, the DRC was undoubtedly sceptical about the move to a single equality commission, but those difficulties have been largely overcome. The EOC has expressed active and enthusiastic support for the Bill, as have many other non-governmental organisations that have written to us.
	There is a further need to adjust our legislative base to incorporate all the unfinished business from the European directive, and to make effective and reasonably comprehensiveI stress the word reasonablyprovision for the new strands of ageism, sexual preference and religious or other belief commitments.
	There is also a need, although it is not wholly met by the Bill, to begin to set up the stakes for moving in an evolutionary style towards a harmonisation of the various approaches to discrimination in all its forms and to deal with the problems that have been mentioned about double, triple or quadruple jeopardy for people who may be discriminated against in a number of ways. Finally, and in no sense least in my book, there is a need to move the public debate on to give some teeth and force to the human rights agenda in its widest sense.
	Those are all strong arguments in principle for the Bill, and I will say in a moment where I stand in relation to the introduction and timing of the Bill measured against other issues, but I must enter a degree of caution about overselling it. Indeed, I usually need to advise the Government against overselling their legislation generally. The Bill looks good. As I said, it would be a brave man or woman who came to the House this afternoon and said that they were against equality or against legislation to promote it, but the Bill is more about machinery than concept. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in introducing it was heavy on the conceptI genuinely agreed with her in an interventionbut, in fact, the Bill is about machinery.
	Frankly, before the consultation process, Ministers initially ran into difficulties even with their own statutory bodies. I can remember some pretty blistering initial comments from the Commission for Racial Equality, and the DRC had familiar reservations. Those reservations have been largely resolved in the process to date, but the Bill is, of course, by definition, given the timing, only a demonstration of commitment. That is what we are hearing this afternoon. We all know that the real business is to come, and that there must be further examination, input, consultation and, of course, the parallel process of the studies to which Ministers have referred.
	The questions rightly put by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) from the Conservative Front Bench are always reasonable ones. Are the resources sufficient and appropriate? Is the new structure adequate to carry the weight for all the various strains and to represent the interests of those who are within those strains? Equally, is it possible to put together what has been an historic legacy of different commissions in a way that is as economic and cost-saving as possible, while providing equal convenience and service for users?
	For example, the DRC has an excellent helpline. It is terribly important that that is continued and that the help is provided by people who are disability specialists. I am not too interested in one sense in the tokenism of the membership of the commission, although it is often useful in practice to include those who have direct experience of the difficulties and discrimination that people face. I am absolutely concerned that there should be a proper underpinning of expertise. Indeed, there was some historic concern from Northern Ireland, when the single commission was created, about whether those pockets of expertise were continuing. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston was right to remind us, as he so often does, about the importance of advocacy and supporting people in their concerns.
	Much reference has been made alreadyin the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), magnificently from his own memoryto the very clear briefing provided by Stonewall about the ramshackle nature of the existing law. With all the different bits of law that applyI think that he totalled them at 119it is rather like a kind of Austro-Hungarian empire that has built up and is now applicable. Ministers are conscious of that; they have commissioned their own review of discrimination law, and a parallel study of equalities is being carried out under Trevor Phillips, and I welcome both of those.
	I follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford, North in thinking that there must be concern not just about the different bits of law, but about the fact that, even after the Bill, their application will still be very uneven. There will not be positive duties relating to age or sexual preference. Again, we must return to the fact that enforceability measures on human rights are weaker than those on discrimination. I did not think that the Secretary of State's explanation that addressing that might be rather bothersome and go too far was entirely convincing.

John Bercow: Leaving aside the issue of the duty on public authorities and focusing for a moment on the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the provision of goods, services and facilities, does my hon. Friend think that it is unfortunate that the cases of gay and lesbian people are not advanced in any way under the terms of that aspect of the Bill, given that considerable publicity has been given to the example last year of a gay couple who were denied the right to stay in a Scottish hotelif I remember rightlybecause of a bigoted and prejudiced proprietor? It is unfortunate that that aspect of the matter cannot be dealt with now, although perhaps it could be by amendment in Committee.

Tim Boswell: Yes, the short answer is that I agree with my hon. Friend on that, as I have when we have discussed the matter over several years. The issue must be considered properly in Committee. I say this neutrally without making a prediction about the general election. Over the years I have sometimes noticed that Ministers are unnecessarily timid, but can occasionally be encouraged to do the right thing with the assistance of a lively debate in Committee. Unfortunately, however, that is an unrealistic prospect today.
	I have said this regarding disability discrimination, but I say it again now because it is still important. There is a needI hope that the Minister's study of discrimination law will examine thisto consider the different forums under which redress can be obtained in law. Of course, there might be a single commission under the Bill, but there would still be different legal ways of obtaining redress depending on the nature of a case. The Minister will well know from our discussions on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 that even in education provision, special educational needs are dealt with by tribunals during the compulsory years, but anyone who complains of discrimination and is older than the compulsory age of education must have recourse to the county court. There are several examples from the past. A study by the Royal National Institute of the Blind showed the different results obtainable through employment tribunals under part 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1985 compared with those obtained under part 3 of the Act following discrimination in relation to goods and services. The Minister needs to examine carefully and critically how fairly people will be able to get their legal rights, even if those rights exist in legislation.
	I must warn the House that special factors regarding disability do not apply to racial discrimination and arguably apply to a lesser extent to gender discrimination. I am thinking especially of the fact that questions of disability discrimination often hinge on the extent of adaptation and what represent reasonable adjustments. However, one can say quite simply that a person either is a racist or homophobe, or is not. There is not a question of accommodation, but whether people behave acceptably.
	I welcome the interaction with the reviews about which the Secretary of State talked. I hope that they will go forward in a good spirit as promptly as possible. We all understand the point well made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that we will need a single overarching legal framework in due course, which I readily concede. It may well be that the studies will coincide with the future reintroduction of the legislation, but, on reflection and partly stimulated by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, I feel that it would be better to get on with establishing the commission now. There might be advantages in doing soas a Conservative, I can see the argument for getting the commission up and runningbut I say to Ministers, whoever they may be in future, that we must also make sure that the legislation that we enact now is fit for purpose and can be adapted to a new framework, and that ultimately we have a single, overarching, consolidated piece of legislation that everyone can understand and that can be explained in simple terms. At that point, we will have achieved what I believe is a common objective.
	It is hardly surprising, given how much politics is in our mind at the moment, that we have discussed the various views and provisions in respect of human rights. Let me say neutrally and with no political intent that I want to see a little less political correctness and a little less legalism and a lot more delivery in terms of securing people's rights and avoiding discrimination. Before coming here, I gave a little thought to the questions what is discrimination and what are a person's rights to avoid it. It seems to mehere I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend madethat there is a proper place for legislation in terms of setting out people's rights, in part to punish defaulters and those who are not willing to play by the rules, and in part to drive good practice by giving management a reason, motive or excuse to do the right thing, while emphasising the strong business case for doing so.
	I have argued that case in the House before, but I shall do so again now. If one is a good diversity employer and if one has an enlightened attitude toward people of different sexual orientationor whateverone is more representative of society and one's customer base, and people will come to one's store, bank or service industry because they are more comfortable about doing so. I think that the business case aligns quite closely with what I call, in shorthand, the moral case for these provisions. As has already been said, it is therefore especially important to ensure that, as well as leaders of industry, small and medium-sized enterprises are given active encouragement and support to do the right thing.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) that there is scope for more serious analysis of the underlying issues. We are not here because we think that lawyers feel uncomfortable with discrimination or because there is a European directive, or even because the Minister is moving the Second Reading of this piece of legislation. We are here because many of usperhaps we Conservatives have made less of our commitment in this respectare aware of the history of under-representation, in effect a denial of full participation in society. Examples include the lagging remuneration of women and the huge unemployment among disabled peoplemuch higher than the average, despite the fact that many want to work. People face obstacles to their career, denial of some of their life chances and, as the Disability Rights Commission is reviewing, functional discrimination in relation to access to medical services. All those things happen. They ought to be a concern of the united commission and of this House. It is not just a matter of passing a piece of legislation that says we are all equal now. It is a matter of asking how unequal are we and what are we going to do about it.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend educated me in these matters some five years ago and he is therefore responsible for a good deal of what has followed. I have always been grateful to him. May I put it to him that the essence of our argument is that legislation of this sort is to be viewed not as a threat to be minimised, but as an opportunity to be grasped, because for individuals and for the country as a whole it makes sense socially, culturally and, indeed, economically?

Tim Boswell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He leads me on to my third point by way of general argument. Apart from the need to consider rights as a positive way of driving forward good business practice and apart from having regard to the pockets of functional discrimination that continue in this country and blight it, there is a general national need to conduct our affairs with decency and respect. The word respect has appeared in a number of places and it is right that it has.
	I believe firmly in the idea of one nation. I do not want to see anybody left out or put upon. I believe positively that our society is strengthened and empowered by diversity. We should all have moved on from the stage of saying that we should not be nasty to one another to asking, Why wouldn't it be a good thing if we realised what tremendous assets we have in people and made the best use of them? Surely that is a perfectly proper approach.
	If, in a sense, there is to be an overarching public duty, we could start profitably with clause 3, which provides general duties. Above all, however, public authorities collectively should treat citizens decently. That is what the European convention on human rights was meant to be about. I am not a lawyer but I understand that the convention was very much grounded in the British concepts, of which we are still proud, of common law and equity. It is about how we treat people properly. That is a great prize.
	I am not sure how we can underwrite decency into public policy. I do know, however, as a constituency MemberI am sure that we have all had this experiencethat people come to see us who have not been treated decently by the public system. There has been a distressing element of harshness, lack of communication, administrative failure or whatever. A Member often has to say, I am sorry. The system has let you down. I shall try to rescue you from it. We can perhaps do something to improve both public law and public practice to make such an approach more a thing of the past.
	Beyond that there are some private duties, which we have personally, in terms of our own moral ethic. There may be no way in practice that we can either achieve, or claim to have achieved, the removal of any discrimination or nastiness from our inner thoughts or our hearts. We cannot legislate for that. However, Government and public people can help both by their own example and the language that they usefor example in election campaignsand by the way that they approach these issues. They can help also by achieving, encouraging and fostering a higher level of public debate and public education. It is clear that when people are educated, they behave better in relation to these issues than if they are not. If fear can be removed from the process, that is also positive.
	I have spoken rather personally because I feel strongly about these matters. I welcome the Bill. I realise that it will not happen now but it paves the way for changes that are important and are already happening, and it reinforces those changes. The process is irreversible but so it should be. As this is part of a process in which we are engaged, I do not want to leave politicsI can assure the House that I am standing as a candidate at this electionunless and until our better instincts as a nation are fulfilled.

Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I note with interest that the modernising tendency of the Conservative party is in great evidence, but the massively empty green Benches around the hon. Gentleman demonstrate that the enemy, if I might put it that way, in internal Conservative party terms has not really made an appearance today, which is a pity. It would have been interesting to hear from those Members and learn of their thoughts on a radical and welcome Bill. I am sure that those of us who are fortunate enough to be back in this place after the election will hear from them.
	I congratulate the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality on introducing the Bill, and on the great deal of work on it that she has personally undertaken. I congratulate her and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the work that they have done as Ministers with responsibility for women and equality. Who knows what position anyone will hold when we get back after the election, but I would like to pay tribute to them now. Baroness Morgan initiated the move towards a single commission, and those of us who agree with that approach will want to put on record our thanks to her for that. The measures are now close to fruition, although this is perhaps more of a dress rehearsal than the opening night of a play. However, we shall just have to enjoy it for what it is, and anticipate the debates to come in the next Parliament.
	I welcome the approach taken by the Bill. It has been commented on by many of those who have spoken today. It represents the modernisation of the way in which we regard equality legislation, and a move forward from the approach introduced by a great heroine of mine, Barbara Castle, who put a great swathe of anti-discrimination protections on to the statute book in the 1970s, ranging from the Equal Pay Act 1970 to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and by the former Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, to whom moving tributes were paid yesterday, who was responsible for the race relations legislation that accompanied that first generation of laws. Those laws made a big difference in what had been an area of great worry and narrowed life opportunities, in which people who were being subjected to prejudices and discrimination through no fault of their own found themselves without legal redress.
	I am encouraged by the debate that we have had today. The time is now right to move on to a different generation of anti-discrimination legislation that seeks to prevent discrimination from happening in the first placerather than offering redress after it has happened, important though that isand to promote equality. That is a much more proactive approach which will prevent a great deal of distress and alleviate a lot of suffering by ensuring that the discrimination does not happen. That is what we all, as legislators, wish to see in Britain. We must move this legislation on to the front foot, so that it can prevent discrimination from happening rather than arriving after the mess has been made. That is not to say that redress after the event is unimportant, and when the Bill finally reaches its Committee stage, we shall look carefully at the enforcement powers of the new, and very welcome, single commission, to ensure that none of its teeth are lost in the transition.
	It is also important to welcome clause 3, which sets out in very eloquent terms the fundamental duties of the commission for equality and human rights. I shall read out its provisions, because they really do say it all. It requires the commission to work towards the
	creation of a society in which . . . people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination.
	That is an important aspiration, which has been shared across the House in today's debate. Clause 3 also requires the commission to ensure that
	there is respect for and protection of each individual's human rights . . . respect for the dignity and worth of each individual,
	and that
	each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and . . . there is mutual respect between communities based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights.
	I could not have put it better myself. I would be pleased to see such an aspiration and duty on the face of British legislation. It marks a shift away from trying to clear up the mess after the event through redress to trying to forge a different sort of society, in which mutual tolerance and respect is almost taken for granted, and is promoted and expected in all walks of life. I hope that that will apply equally in the private sector, where we have a little more to do.

John Bercow: I agree with the hon. Lady's point about prevention rather than redress whenever possible. However, given that there has been widespread flouting of the law on the minimum wagean important Government policydoes she agree that one way in which to concentrate ministerial minds would be for the Government to give a commitment, which Conservative Front Benchers would echo, to an annual debate on equality issues on the Floor of the House so that evidence of breaches could be highlighted?

Angela Eagle: All attempts to raise the issues in Parliament, whether in Government time or in other ways, are welcome. When we ultimately reach a Committee stage, we might want to re-examine the Bill to ascertain whether to include further mechanisms in it. Given the good will in the House, at least today, I hope that we can find reasonable ways of realising that ambition.
	Despite 30-odd years of anti-discrimination legislation, serious problems remain. The gender pay gap is approximately 18 per cent. on average, and is grossly higher in some sectors of the economy, especially financial services, where it is about 60 per cent. Members of ethnic minorities suffer from a similar gap, for which only their ethnicity can account, and it is as unacceptable as the gender pay gap. The House will consider the Disability Discrimination Bill tomorrowthank goodness that will reach the statute book. However, people with disabilities are not even at the starting gate because many are denied the practical right to get to work, participate fully in society and make the undoubted contribution that their many talents would bring to it. We want the new single commission to assist us in dealing with those formidable problems.
	I especially welcome the extension in part 2 of the goods and services protection on the ground of race. However, I echo the impatience that has been expressed in the Chamber today at the exclusion of what I call the orphan strandssexual orientation, age and religious beliefwhich currently have no primary legislation. I suspect that we can put that right only through a rapid move to a single equality Act. My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have been pushing for that in the partyit is now official party policyand in any other way that I can, including involvement in the all-party group and working with Lord Lester, who is a doughty campaigner on such issues. I promoted his private Member's Bill in this House after he managed to carry it in the other place. It is important to get on with this matter quickly.
	I especially welcome the duty in the Bill to promote equality on the ground of gender. The Government promised to do that in 1998, but used the ominous phrase, when legislative time is available. Some of us have fought since then to ensure that legislative time would be made available. We have not quite made it under the gate as it closes on this Parliament, but I hope that we will revert to it as a matter of great urgency in the next. I am encouraged by the response to my question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East[Hon. Members: West.] How could I confuse the Members for Leicester, West and for Leicester, East? I must be having a tiring day. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I was encouraged by the Secretary of State's answer that we would proceed rapidly from dress rehearsal to the real thing at the earliest opportunity in the next Parliament.
	It is interesting that the Joint Committee on Human Rights described the Bill in uncharacteristically enthusiastic terms as
	the most important measure for the advancement of human rights in this country since the Human Rights Act itself
	I am encouraged that there is enthusiasm for creating a mechanism to ensure that the rights of British citizens under the Human Rights Act are effectively safeguarded without the need for extremely expensive and cumbersome constant recourse to the courts. I know that other Members want to concentrate on that issue, so I will not pursue it. The fundamental duty of the single commission, however, is very welcome.
	I agree with many of those who have said that we need a robust legal framework for the commission for equality and human rights to enforce. That brings us back inexorably to the case for a single equality Act, and the importance of ensuring that such an Act reaches the statute book as quickly as possible in the next Parliament, consistent with doing a good job on the drafting. To that end, I am extremely encouraged that the discrimination law review has been set up, with the equality review working in tandem with it, to begin to do the work on what the single equality Act will look like. It is important that that proceeds as quickly as possible so that the single commission has a coherent set of legislation to enforce once it is up and running.
	It has been said that the existing anti-discrimination law in the UK is rather complex. Different figures have been given for the number of itemsI think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) had slightly more up-to-date figures than I have. I had a figure of slightly less than 100, but a few more statutory instruments and EU directives have probably passed me by since I last did a count. We can all agree, however, that people must try to find their way through a tangled, inconsistent, unpredictable, piecemeal and complex webeven when, as in the majority of cases, I believe, employers wish to do the right thing and ensure that they abide by the law.
	Such a complex network of legislation and duties also makes it almost impossible for individuals who believe that they may have been discriminated against to find out, by examining the law, what their rights are, how they might access them and how they might protect them, unless they have the support of, say, a trade union or an advocacy group, which can teach them and point out what their rights are. Ideally, a simplified, harmonised approach is needed. We need an approach that consolidates some of the law that we have, but that also extends that law. As many Members on both sides of the House have pointed out today, there are some serious loopholes and inconsistencies in the law, which create a hierarchy of discrimination and protection from discrimination, which is unjustifiable when it is examined.
	The existing law is under-inclusive. Those who are discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race or disability are more widely protected than those who are discriminated against in relation to what I have referred to as the orphan strandsthe newer strands of sexual orientation, age and religious belief. As has been pointed out by other Members who have contributed to the debate, those of a certain age or sexual orientation may be actively discriminated against in the provision of goods, services or facilities, yet have no redress in law.
	The present position is ridiculous. It is illegal for a landlord to say that he does not want a woman tenant or to prevent someone from becoming a tenant because of that person's colour, but it is not illegal to refuse tenants because of their age or sexual orientation. I cannot for the life of me see any justification for that. It must be put right as quickly as possible.
	As I said earlier, we must shift the focus towards promotion and prevention rather than concentrating only on redress. That means restructuring some of our current laws. Our efforts to introduce a single equality Act must proceed in parallel with work that has already begun to create mechanisms for the enforcement of such a law, and the establishment of the commission for equality and human rights. I hope that in the next Parliament, in the not too distant future, we shall be able to enact both pieces of legislation. I welcome this dress rehearsal, and look forward to the real thing.

Julie Morgan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. I welcome the opportunity to give the Bill a Second Reading, especially as it takes place on the day on which a general election has been called. I shall be proud to campaign on the Bill, which focuses on the fundamental issue of equality and sends the clear message that it is at the top of our agenda, and I am proud that the Government have introduced it.
	We know of the discrimination that still exists widely in nearly all spheres. The Secretary of State described it vividly, and I shall deal with some aspects of it later. First, however, let me congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on the hard work that they have done with various organisations to generate all this support for the Bill. I also congratulate the organisations involved, particularly the Equal Opportunities Commission. It helped the all-party sex equality group, which I chair and which has engaged in discussions on the Bill. I pay tribute to its relentless pursuit of the equality agenda.
	I am very pleased about the review of all equality law. There has been a good deal of pressure for that from Members who are present today and from a number of organisations, and I am glad that the Government have responded. The current law is complex and inaccessible, and the mismatch of legislation is unacceptable. We have heard references to 35 Acts and to numerous statutory instruments, codes of practice and EC directives. It is impossible to continue with that legislative framework.
	I especially welcome the creation of the commission for equality and human rights. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), I felt very proud when I read the list of fundamental duties that it will have,
	with a view to the creation of a society in which . . . people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination,
	and providing that
	there is respect for and protection of each individual's human rights . . . respect for the dignity and worth of each individual . . . each individual has an equal opportunity . . . there is mutual respect between communities.
	I am proud to be associated with those ambitions, and, like others who have spoken, I am very pleased that the Bill promoted equality rather than just picking up the mess. It is a proactive Bill.
	The commission will carry out the work of the existing commissions on gender, race and disability and will work to prevent discrimination and promote equality in the areas of age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. I welcome the extension of protection to groups discriminated against on those grounds. I alsowelcome the extension of protection against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of religion or belief, but I would like such protection to be extended to cover discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or age, and to be extended to transgendered people. That issue has been referred to and the Secretary of State responded to it, but it is important that we bring those different strands together as soon as possible.
	From a Welsh perspectivethere is a distinct oneI welcome the fact that the commission in Wales will have greater autonomy than the commissions currently enjoy and will have an explicit power to advise the Welsh Assembly. However, I want an assurance that it will have a strong, devolved structure so that it can engage effectively in the context of devolution. I would be grateful if the Minister assured me about that when she responds.
	I welcome the fact that there will be a separate Wales committee, which will be part of the new commission. It will set the agenda of the commission for equality and human rights in Wales, and it will take into account the fact that Wales is different from England. I hope that the Minister will respond to my earlier question about how that committee will be appointed.
	The commission needs to acknowledge that there are specific circumstances in Wales that need to be addressed, such as the high number of small and medium-sized enterprises there. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that those businesses should not be exempt from the legislation, but we need to address the equality issue with them in a sensitive way. The Equal Opportunities Commission has received a tremendous amount of lobbying from small businesses in Wales. We must not exempt them, but we must approach the equality issue carefully.
	I want the commission to be properly resourced, so that there is adequate funding to address the issues in Wales.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend makes an important point about how the different situation that may pertain in parts of Wales should be taken into account when considering equality issues. However, I hope that she would not encourage too much divergence from the fundamental principles embraced in the Bill. Part of the advantage of having a separate Wales committee is that some of the work done in this area by the Welsh Assembly Government has been groundbreaking. Indeed, we might want such suggestions to be brought into play throughout the UK.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention and I agree with the points that he made.
	I want the commission to be properly resourced, so that there is adequate funding to address equality issues in Wales. The current budget70 million has been allocated to itis, in the opinion of many equality organisations, insufficient to meet all the demands placed on it. I was concerned to hear from Conservative Front Benchers that the budget could be streamlined. In fact, the budget is probably not enough, and I hope that the Minister will address that issue when she responds.
	A report by the EOC, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Legal Services Commission found that Wales was an advice desert. There is only one law centre in the whole of Wales. Even if an individual can get advice, they may not have access to experts trained in discrimination law. Funding for training advisers in Wales is clearly needed, and we need to make sure that the Bill provides it. So there is much work to do in training people in Wales, and we must have a budget that is able to provide for that. There is also, of course, the issue of the Welsh language.
	I therefore agree with the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We do not wish to diverge from the main thrust, which is the commission's covering the whole UK, but we must take into account the particular issues relating to Wales.
	I also welcome the creation in the Bill of a public sector duty to promote equality between women and men. That duty will come alongside the existing race duty and the new disability duty, and I congratulate the EOC on its effective lobbying on this issue. In addition to what is covered in the Bill, I would like the elimination of harassment to be included in the gender duty, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that the gender duty will require public sector bodies to address unlawful pay discrimination, and to carry out the pay reviews that the EOC is promoting in its briefing for the Bill.
	The pay gap in Wales is of particular concern, though on the basis of the figures provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), it may be less than in England. For full-time women workers in Wales, it is 14 per cent. and for part-time workers, a completely unacceptable 32 per cent. A mandatory pay review would go some way towards addressing the problem, and I would like to hear whether the Government are prepared to go down that route.
	I would like to raise the issue of the relationship of the new commission with the Children's Commissioner for Walesit is a rights-based organisationand with the new commissioner for older people, which we discussed in connection with a draft Bill in the Welsh Affairs Committee this morning. There is bound to be an overlap of functions and it is important to develop relationships between the bodies that cover the same issues. The draft Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill will, we were led to understand by the officials who gave evidence this morning, enact the first such commissioner in the world. The Bill's general aim is, among other things, to promote awareness of the interests of older people in Wales and to promote the provision of opportunities for, and the elimination of discrimination against, older people in Wales. We need to ensure that the two elements work well together and to avoid competing legislation. That will be part of the detailed work in Committee, which I hope will take place soon after we return to government. Tackling these issues should be one of our first priorities.
	I would like to deal with some particular aspects of discrimination. We legislate for a purposeto ensure that equality is promoted and honouredand I believe that the Bill will help to eliminate sexism and gender discrimination, as well as racism and racial discrimination.
	I also hope that the Bill will help us to deal with one of the most discriminated against groups in our society. I refer to the position of Gypsies and Travellers in this country. I am pleased that the Commission for Racial Equality is now working hard to promote the rights and needs of Gypsy Travellers. I hope that the legislation will help to ensure that adequate Traveller sites are provided in this country. Since the duty on local authorities was scrapped by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in governmenthe got rid of the Caravan Sites Act 1968we have faced a difficult situation as to where Gypsies and Travellers are to stop. It has caused many problems for Gypsies and Travellers and for the local settled communities.
	We all know that the policies of the marketTravellers were told that the market would provide and that they should buy their own land and get planning permission to set up their own siteshave failed miserably. It is very difficult for them to secure planning permission; indeed, the planning system rejects 90 per cent. of applications from Gypsies and Travellers. That has resulted in many illegal encampments, which then cause problems for local residents and are unacceptable for the Gypsy Travellers themselves. Currently, we face a no-win situation.
	I believe that the Gypsy and Traveller community has cause to welcome the Bill. We know that these are among the most discriminated against groups in society. If the Bill means anything, we will have to tackle this issue and try to change people's attitudes towards Gypsies and Travellers. It is not easy to tackle it; we politicians find it difficult to do so. Sometimes I feel that we are discussing the Bill in theory, but at some point we have to face up to the existence of real discrimination and then do something about tackling it.
	We know that Gypsies and Travellers have the highest rates of infant mortality, the worst health and the lowest levels of educational achievement in the country. A fairly recent MORI poll was commissioned by Stonewall. The attitudes survey showed that 18 per cent. of respondents felt less positive about members of other ethnic groups, while 35 per cent. said that they felt less positive about Gypsies and Travellers. I hope that the Bill will tackle that problem and will go some way towards providing equal opportunities in housing, health and education for Gypsy Travellers. It should help to stop the current highly unsatisfactory position, which is very hard on both Gypsy Travellers and on local settled communities. If we get back into government, that is one of the first issues that we must tackle. We must improve the situation for people who suffer such great discrimination, and for the residents who suffer the problems of illegal encampments.
	For many reasons, I welcome this Bill. I hope that it will render George Orwell's dictum that some people are more equal than others a thing of the past. I look forward to a time when people of whatever gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation or religious belief can enjoy real equality and complete freedom from discrimination. I believe that this Bill is an excellent step in that direction.

Jacqui Lait: I apologise for the fact that I was unavoidably absent for the middle part of this debate, although I followed proceedings with one ear as much as I could. I want to add my voice to all those who have spoken in support of the Bill.
	The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has been on the statute book for 30 years and, although the Secretary of State may not be aware of it, I worked very hard to ensure its success. I campaigned, lobbied, marched, wrote letters and attended endless meetings in its support, and it is good that the thinking on which it was based is being extended across society.
	While I campaigned for the 1975 Act, in my heart of hearts, I hoped that it would eventually be repealed when we had succeeded in achieving our aims and objectives in respect of equality for women. It is sad that, 30 years later, we are still talking about it. I hope that it does not take another 30 years before our successors can repeal this legislation, which I believe will achieve a huge amount. It is part of the great tradition in which legislation is used to change cultural attitudes. Legislation has a real role in that process and I am sure that, in the long run, this Bill will ensure that discrimination is eliminated from our society.
	I do not want to repeat what many have said already, but neither do I want the warm welcome that this Bill has received in the Chamber to end up with us being burned as we were by the Child Support Act 1991. All hon. Members will remember the heart-rending child support cases that we heard about in our postbags and surgeries, and we should be wary about a Bill that receives a similarly warm reception here. When the Bill is enacted, I am sure that it will be broadly helpful, but we must look at it with a critical eye to ensure that it does not cause the resentment and difficulties experienced with other legislation.
	I am keen that the CEHR should succeed and hope that the Government are not contemplating a repeat of what happened with the Equal Opportunities Commission. I intend no slur on Manchester, but the EOC was rather banished from what might be called the centre of influence. My friends among the commissioners, and my own experience, tell me that the EOC was not as influential as had been hoped when it was established and I am sure that distance was one of the factors in that. I therefore hope that, when the new body is set up, it remains in the centre of influence, which is still London, although I accept that there should be a Welsh and a Scottish element to it because of the devolved Administrations.
	It is crucial that the body works with the grain of society. Although there is a need to confront discrimination and prejudice, it is much easier to persuade a society to accept the changes that are required to deliver equality if people are encouraged to go along that route, rather than enraged or driven to take that route because resentment has built up. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the need to work with the grain of society, making sure that businesses, organisations and the community feel that it is in their own best interest to rid society of discrimination and to work towards equality because it would deliver a better society.
	It is important that the new organisation is clear in its thinking. One problem with other equality bodies is that language has been developed that is all-encompassing and which avoids the issue in order not to offend. The problem is that the language itself is derided and people ignore or deride the organisation. None of us wants the efforts to abolish inequality to be undermined by language that invites mockery. We label it politically correct language, but in my view using such language often means avoiding clarity of thought. If we are not clear in our objectives and the meaning of the words that we use, we are likely to undermine our objectives. It is crucial that the CEHR is clear about what it wants to achieve and that it speaks in language that is readily understood.
	Reading the explanatory notes, one thing that struck me was the general duty on the public bodies to ensure gender balance, with which I have no quarrel. That is not before time and I wish them all success in so doing. What slightly bothers me is how that is to be implementedwhether it will be implemented from the centre, whether public bodies will be subject to further quotas and targets, whether there will be costs to the bodies for the measurement of their achievements or lack thereof, and what impact those costs could have on the organisation, in terms of extra administration, and ultimately on the taxpayer or, in the case of local government, the council tax payer.
	We are all well aware that council tax has risen steeply in recent years and that there is huge resentment of it. I would not wish legislation to be approved that added further costs to public bodies. It is encouraging that an organisation such as the Audit Commission is reviewing the amount of auditing work that it imposes on the bodies that it audits. I would hate to think that we were complicit in adding further costs, having just taken some away, particularly from local government. I would like the Minister to assure us that provisions to ensure gender balance will not give rise to extra costs and bureaucracy.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that it is in the best interests of small businesses to maximise the quality of their employees. Labour Members discussed whether small businesses should be exempt from the legislation and I should be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on that and whether it is an issue for the equalities review. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said that 90 per cent. of business is comprised of small businesses and that we must ensure that they are not overburdened or over-regulated. One million jobs have gone from manufacturing industry in the past few years and we do not want to put yet another regulatory burden on small businesses. We need to work with them so that they are encouraged to hire people and are not badgered and bullied into it.
	Three organisations are being consolidated into one and there will be savings on premises. However, there will be overlapping expertise and the cost to the new organisation will be higher. The existing commissions believe that they do not have sufficient resources and it will be difficult for the Department to work out the balance, but we must ensure that, when the bodies are consolidated, duplication in obvious areas is winnowed out or efficiency will be reduced. No new body would want to be labelled inefficient from the start.
	My final point is more personal. We have discussed the groups that we do not want to suffer discrimination, but I am concerned about the stigma that still attaches to people with mental health problems. When we discuss discrimination against people with disabilities, mental health disabilities are often overlooked. Society still stigmatises people with mental health disabilities more than those with physical disabilities. Will the Minister assure me that the commission's remit will cover mental health so that it can work with the broader population to alleviate people's fears about those with mental health problems? People who are mentally ill are capable of recovering because modern drugs and treatment enable them to play a full part in society. If that is achieved, a large group of peopleone in five will suffer from a mental illness at some timewill have that stigma removed and be able to play a full part in society.
	With those slightly cautionary notes, I wish the Bill well, but I also think that we need to look at it with a clear eye. There are pitfalls that we need to avoid before it passes into law, leaving us needing to change the legislation at a later date.

Keith Vaz: I am delighted to take part in what is probably the last Second Reading debate of this Parliament and which, because the Bill will not be able to complete all its stages, may well provide the first Second Reading debate of the next Parliament when we come back after the election. I have been in the House for 18 years, and I cannot recall such a good-tempered debate on an issue that used to cause great controversy. I remember debates on equality and race and community relations in which there was much anxiety and distress among Members on both sides. Certainly, that was so when we were the Opposition and the Government were Conservative. That has not happened today, and we have heard some excellent speeches on both sides. Three in particular deserve mentionthose from the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)and we have just had a speech from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I often vote for the hon. Member for Buckingham as Back Bencher of the year; I know that he did not win this year, just, and he cannot win every year, but I am sure that after the election I shall vote for him as the Opposition Front Bencher of the year, because I am sure that his hard work in Parliament will be rewarded by whoever is the next Leader of the Opposition.
	What has been good about the debate are the constructive points that Members have put in welcoming what the Government propose to do in the Bill. We have needed a Bill of this kind for some time, and there is no doubt huge support for it outside Parliament. All of us have received a briefing note from practically every one of the organisations involved, and there is universal praise. When the Law Society agrees with Stonewall and the Citizens Advice Bureau with Age Concern, there must be something very right about what the Government propose.
	There is all-party endorsement, although I am sorry that I missed the speech from the Liberal Front-Bench spokesman and most surprised to see so few Liberal Democrat Members attending; they often claim to belong to the party that speaks for equality, but they obviously do not feel that so strongly that they felt they should come here in large numbers, which is a pity.
	As the Secretary of State said, equality is the defining issue of our age. I am proud to have been a member of the first multiracial Government in this country's history, and I am very proud of what the Labour Government have done since 1997 on equality issues. In a sense, the Bill is an emphatic underlining of the work that we have done and a pledge to continue it after the election.
	A lot of tributes have been given to Ministers, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, who has steered the Bill through from the initial consultation period, but I particularly mention my Leicester colleague, the Secretary of State, for her work on the equality issue. I have called her the champion of equality. I share a city and a community with her, and we go to many community events together. Throughout her long career, and even before she came to the House through her work for the National Council for Civil Liberties, she has always championed the ethnic minority community and women's rights. It is therefore right that she should have introduced the Bill.
	My concern when the Bill was publisheda concern, too, of the black and Asian communitywas that we did not want the Government to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality. We felt that this was not the right time to deal with the CRE on the same basis as the other organisations. I welcome the fact that a number of organisations that have never had a commission acting on their behalf, such as Stonewall and Age Concern, will be included, with all these other strands, but I felt, and the community felt, that there was a strong case for keeping the CRE outside the ambit of the new commission until it was ready to join. Ministers in this Government listened very carefully to what the community had to say. They accepted the points made by organisations such as the 1990 Trust, listened to the consultation that took place and heeded the wise words of the CRE chairman, Trevor Phillips, who will now be chairing the equalities review, and they accepted that this was not the right time.
	On race, a number of issues had to be resolved and time was needed to ensure that that was done before the CRE became part of that whole. We therefore welcome the fact that late entry is being accorded to the CRE. That commitment has been warmly welcomed by the community as a whole. That does not detract from the fact that we need to get on and ensure that we have the single equality Act that we need to ensure that the Human Rights Act 1998 is very much a part of our everyday life in this country.
	I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will be speaking next. There is no better advocate or champion of human rights legislation. She is much more experienced on these matters than I am, and I am sure that she will cover this point. When that legislation first became part of our domestic law, there were concerns about how it would develop. We all welcome it, and it has become part of the everyday life of our country; indeed, it is part of the law. It is right that the commission will recognise human rights issues within its overall ambit. Why have four or five commissions when we could have one commission on equality?
	The other important point in this debate is the way the chairman of the commission and the other commissioners are chosen. I know that there is detail in the Bill and that we will have a chance to scrutinise it when it goes into Committee after the election, but it is important that we ensure that the commission properly reflects the community as a whole and the stakeholders in this new organisation.
	The point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham is also important. I am not sure whether she was in favour of or against targets for public bodies. I think that targets are a very good idea. I recently completed a report called Making Progress, which looks at Government appointments to quangos over the past five years with particular reference to the black and Asian community. The power of appointment is an extremely important weapon, and we need to make sure that we use it to put black and Asian people on to those committees, to put more women on to our quangos and to make sure that every group in society is properly represented.
	The hon. Member for Daventry, a former Minister who, in government, had the opportunity to make a number of appointments, correctly talked about the huge talent that we have in this country. That is why we have a leadership role in equality and race issues in Europe. We are able to show by examplenot by positive action but by merithow our various communities, not just the black and Asian community, but women and all the other communities that make up Great Britain, have been able to contribute to the country. That is something that we can be proud of, but we need to go much further. Of course, jobs must be awarded on merit, but when the commission is formed, we must ensure not only that the commissioners are representative of society as a whole but, much more importantly, that people who have executive positions are also properly representative of society. That is happening with the civil service now; it is getting better. However, as the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have said in speeches on the issue, there is still so much more that can be done. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar is a rare example of a woman QC, but she was appointed on merit; she just happened to be a woman.
	There has been much better progress in some Departments, especially in the Home Office. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was Home Secretary, targets were introduced for the first time. In the Lord Chancellor's Department, now the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Lord Chancellor has made a huge effort to ensure that there is adequate diversity in the appointment of the judiciaryall based on merit. The basis of equality is to ensure not that we have positive discrimination in this country, but that every citizen has the right to be chosen on their merits.
	On today of all days, when the Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty for a general election and Parliament is to be dissolved, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) made a good point: the Bill is a good campaigning issue. It seems as though there will be common ground, which is good for politics and for our country. If equality and race could be taken above party politics and become campaigning subjects across parties and across the political spectrum, that would be the way forward.
	My final point is about location. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality may want to announce that the new commission will be based in Redditch, but what better place to house the new equality commission than the great city of Leicester?

John Bercow: East.

Keith Vaz: Leicester, East is not yet a city. However, the architect of the legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, comes from Leicester and by 2010 the city will have more people of Asian origin than any city in Europe, and half our population happens to be women. It is a perfect location, so in supporting the Bill I put in a bid for the city of Leicester. If we spoke to the Secretary of State she might be in favour of that as well.

Vera Baird: Even the members of the commission will have to relax some time. Redcar has a fantastic beach, so my bid is for the location to be further north than Leicester. However, I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who gave such an amusing and knowledgeable address.
	I welcome the Bill. I hope I do not sound like a pompous lawyer, but I should like to welcome it not just personally but as chair of the all-party group on equalities. We thoroughly congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, who are great champions for equalities, and in particular great champions of the rights of women.
	The Bill is a huge and strong signal of the Government's commitment to eradicate discrimination and enhance the rights of all members of our society. It makes it clear that the Government understand, if I can put it in shorthand form, that we are all in this together; the pursuit of equalities is not a minority interest.
	Almost equally welcome was the announcement in February of the equalities review, to try to identify the root causes of inequality. I hope and expect that Trevor Phillips can carry out a profound inquiry into the deep-seated, complex and subtle causes of the various inequalities that still limit the personal development of a large number of our citizens at a timethe 21st centurywhen that simply should not be happening.
	Like most people, I also welcome the discrimination law review, which I hope will propose a single Act on equality. People are concerned about timing. The review is due to report in summer 2006, so if its proposals are clear, scrutinised reasonably quickly and accepted, by the time the commission starts in 2007 it may have the powers that it needsthe basis of equal law for all strands of inequality.
	I repeat a point that has been made before: the current random selection of rights in equalities is unacceptable. There is a public duty for race and there is soon to be one for disability. We have suffered hugely as a gender from the fact that there has been no public duty for gender. That is, of course, in the Bill, but there is still no public duty to promote age.
	Equally, discrimination in respect of goods and services on the grounds of race, gender, disability is unlawful. The Bill will prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, but still not on the grounds of age. All those things must be smoothed out and recast to ensure that the new commission is not saddled withI hope that I have in place the right grammatical structurethe oxymoron of a hierarchy of equalities.
	I wish briefly to welcome two aspects of the commission: the equalities aspect absolutely unequivocally, and the human rights aspect strongly, too. The commission's equality duties, as set out in clause 8, are truly all that we could ask for. The commission must
	promote understanding of the importance of equality and diversity . . . encourage good practice . . . promote equality of opportunity . . . promote awareness and understanding of rights under
	equality law, enforce equality law and
	work towards the elimination of
	discrimination and harassment.
	More prosaically but very practically, a huge advantage to having a single commission working together, even though the strands will obviously conduct their own separate work as well, is that it is not always possible to know the basis on which someone is discriminated against. If a 58-year-old black woman is refused a job, it is essential to have what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) called a one-stop shop to which she can take her problem. She should not have to guess why she has been refused the job inappropriately. She needs to go to an organisation that can pick her case, run with it and put right what has been wrong. So I am pleased with the equality aspect, and I am pleased, too, with the incorporation of human rights.
	Human rights is a very dear issue to me. I pay great tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I was briefly privileged to be a member of that Committee, but long after I left, it carried on its powerful work, which I firmly believe has played a large role in ensuring that human rights are part of the Bill and the commission. I strongly compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who has so very well chaired and led the Joint Committee on Human Rights and truly driven the human rights agenda in this Parliament in a way that is second to none.
	The commission's human rights duties are not too bad either. The commission must
	promote the understanding of the importance of human rights . . . encourage good practice in relation to human rights . . . promote awareness, understanding and protection of human rights and . . . encourage public authorities to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.
	I give that four out of six, because I regard it as slightly weak in terms of enforcement.
	I wish to express the devout hope that the commission will be instrumental in bringing about a human rights culture throughout out society. Equality teaches us that we cannot bring about a cultural change by piecemeal advances in rights that come about because of random cases that happen to go to court at any given time. The commission is necessary to drive human rights until they are rooted in our society, so that they become common values that we can use daily to frame and balance what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) talked about: the decent ways that we should deal with one another.
	I want to express three perhaps mild concerns, given the temper of the debate. First, the commission will be able to pursue cases under human rights law where the case is brought on the basis of equality, but if the equality aspect of the case is dropped or somehow falls away, the commission must drop the case completely, unless the Secretary of State gives leave for it to continue on a human rights basis. I cannot think why it should be for the Secretary of State to make such a decision and why the commission cannot determine whether the human rights aspect of the case is good enough to continue in its own right.
	My second concern, which I raised with the Secretary of State, is the absence of teeth in relation to the human rights side of the commission. It has no power to issue codes of practice, and no investigatory and enforcement powers. I appreciate what she saidthat we do not want to overburden the commissionbut I hope there will be an opportunity when we discuss the Bill again to consider increasing the powers that relate to the human rights side of the commission, because it is hugely important that human rights are not seen as a lower priority.
	The third caution that I raise is the way in which clause 9 is framed. Not surprisingly, and entirely appropriately, it gives priority to promoting rights under the European convention on human rights, which is entirely as one would expect. However, I hope that the provision will not preclude the promotion of broader rights. For example, we are signatories to the convention on the rights of the child and the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The specific rights in those conventions equally merit dissemination by the commission, so I hope that I can be reassured that clause 9 is not intended to limit the commission's ambit.
	On the commission's budget, I wish to raise a rather different point from that made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). I think the commission will have an annual budget of 70 million plus start-up costs. All three current commissions think that that will not be sufficient and reckon that a budget of 120 million would be closer to that required. Together they get approximately 50 million, so even with the efficiency savings of which Conservative Members understandably made much, the proposed allocation of 70 million would leave only 20 million extra to deal with the three additional strands of equality: the human rights remit, the expanded operation into Scotland, Wales and the English regionsthat is an important point for someone with a north-east constituencyand the important requirements of the new commission's community functions. It is hard to see how 20 million more than that for the current three commissions would be an adequate sum.
	Let me turn briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham about the Equal Opportunities Commission's fears about what I call in shorthand the missing powers. Section 55 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 currently gives the EOC the power to review discriminatory health and safety provisions. That is important when there is a requirement to treat women and men differently, such as the way in which pregnant women are treated at work. Section 73 of that Act allows the EOC to tackle persistent discrimination when an individual is unwilling or unable to pursue a complaint. It is important that the commission can take the matter to an employment tribunal, get a ruling and subsequently rely on that in civil proceedings. The power is useful and used frequently, but it is not in the Bill and I cannot think why.
	Let me praise the gender duty. The Bill imposes a duty on all public bodies to have due regard to the need
	to eliminate unlawful discrimination, and  . . . promote equality  . . . between men and women.
	What a wonderful turn of phrase, so hallelujah for it. The provision was promised in 1999 and has now been delivered by the Government. Women will be glad to hear of it in the advent of an election and will be increasingly glad as its impact starts to bite in the years to come. The duty will shift responsibility on to public authorities and they will have to ensure that they take active steps to promote gender equality.

John Bercow: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Vera Baird: I willI was actually just about to turn to a point that the hon. Gentleman made.

John Bercow: Given the circumstances, the hon. and learned Lady is especially generous in giving way. Given the importance that the Government rightly attach to the duty to promote gender equality, does she agree that it is not too much to expecteither by amendment in Committee or through secondary legislationa firm commitment to require pay reviews and action to counter pay discrimination not only in the provision of in-house services by public authorities, but in relation to contractors? When services are outsourced, action must be taken to ensure that those who service the Government operate by the standards that the Government apply in-house.

Vera Baird: Three aspects of how the gender duty will impact on the pay gap need clarification. PresumablyI am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm thispublic bodies will be required to address unlawful pay discrimination and carry out pay reviews. However, will the duty go beyond pay reviews and pay discrimination so that the kind of matters that the Women and Work Commission is starting to throw up can be examined? It has issued only a position paper thus far, but it has already found subtle ways in which the emergence of women into equal pay is being obstructed, although they can be remedied. As the hon. Gentleman says, the provision is necessary because although the definition of a public body covers any body that has functions of a public nature and the duty will therefore cover a private security firm that is contracted to provide a public function, for example, that duty will extend only to the public function, not to the whole of the private company. Consequently, the application of contract compliance becomes extremely important. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is what is anticipated and intended, although I do not expect much detail at this early and rather queer stage of the Bill.
	I shall end where I started by giving a welcome to the Bill and a predictive welcome to what I think of as the single equalities Bill that will soon follow. In a few weeks' time, when Labour has been re-elected for an historic third time and that Bill is introduced, we will, with a straight face, have to say what we have said today all over again. Our re-election is an exhilarating prospect, whereas the repetition of this debate is a somewhat debilitating prospect, but I say of both: the sooner, the better.

Eleanor Laing: I am in the peculiar position of agreeing with almost everything that everyone has said in this afternoon's debate, which is hardly the right atmosphere in the Chamber on the day that the Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. However, I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) in that I look forward to having the debate again, because some extremely important issues have been raised and although we have had plenty of time today to discuss them and we have heard some excellent speeches, it is worth re-examining them so that we can perfect the legislation before it is properly introduced in the House.
	I agreed with much of what the Secretary of State said, in particular her remark that equality is a basic moral imperativeor words to that effect. I agree 100 per cent. and I think that all Members of this House do. It is not so long ago that that statement would not have commanded complete agreement within the Chamber, but it is now accepted that equality is a basic moral imperative and no party would argue differently. What is good about the proposals is that instead of being negative and designed to prevent discrimination, they are positive and designed to promote equality. I welcome that approach.
	It is unfortunate that the Government have timetabled the Second Reading today, when the Bill has no chance of becoming law. What a pity that we did not use all those hours that we spent debating the rights and wrongs of fox hunting to consider this Bill, which, had it become lawin a slightly different form, having been through a proper Committee stagecould have done so much good.

Angela Eagle: I am confused, because the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) suggested that we delay the Bill until all the work had been done on the single equality Bill that must surely follow, whereas the hon. Lady wants us to have introduced this Bill sooner. Clearly, we all want legislation on the statute book as soon as possible, but I am confused about the Opposition Front-Bench team's position.

Eleanor Laing: I am saying that it is a pity that the whole issue was not discussed soonernot only weeks, but months or years sooner. However, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her Ministers for much of the work that has been done on equality issues. We discuss those issues week after week, and much progress has been made, which I welcome.
	Also welcome is my expectation that in a few weeks' time, when my colleagues and I are sitting on the other side of the Chamber[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) scoffs, but just let him wait. When we are sitting on the Government Benches, we shall have another debate of this type as a prelude to introducing our legislation on equality, to which we are all committed. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked when that was likely to happen. All I can say is that it has taken the Labour Government eight years to reach this stage, but it will not take the next Conservative Government as long, because for us it is a priority.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) put our case extremely eloquently. I reiterate what he said about the importance of the value of the work force and of fair and equal treatment. He put it so well, saying that what we are trying to do, if this proposed legislation were properly to be brought forward, is to encourage all employers to do what good employers have always done. At the same time we must not put unnecessary burdens on businesses and on employers, especially on small and medium-sized businesses. My worry is that if an employer knows that employing a certain type of employeebe it somebody with a disability, somebody who happens to be female or somebody from a different countryis likely to lead to a case being brought against them for some sort of unfairness, that employer, unfortunately, is likely not to employ that person in the first place. That would be a retrograde step. I do not want to see that happening because I believe passionately in equality of opportunity for everyone in the workplace.
	The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) is right in his plea for the need for strong advocacy in enforcement of the rules that would be brought forward by the commission. Any sort of legislation is meaningless without enforcement. I commend the right hon. Gentleman's patience and perseverance, having spent 19 years waiting to see the fruition of the work that he began a fair while ago. I am sure that he must be pleased to see a little step forward, and that much that he wishes to see happening will probably happen in the months ahead.
	The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made an interesting speech. I agree with his point about the importance of a positive approach and the need to promote a duty of equality rather than just to provide a right to complain in retrospect. He is right to promote sign language, which is what he called his personal soap box. It is so important but it is a much neglected area. I completely support what he has been trying to do. However, how strange it is that when asked how he and his party would implement what he was putting forward as being a reasonable idea, he said at the same time that his party would abolish the Department of Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman is a clever man and a quick thinker but he had no answer to the question. The truth is that he and his party know that there is no chance that they will be in Government to implement any of the things to which he is referring. He has no answer and he has not thought things through because he does not have to do so.

Robert Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) answered the hon. Lady. He told her that the Home Office was the obvious place from which to bring forward this sort of legislation. If she reads the words of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who used to work for Roy Jenkins, she will find that it was a Department that was capable of bringing forward legislation of this sort in the past, and would be capable of bringing it forward in future. Possibly it is a failing of the Department of Trade and Industry that the Home Office is failing to recognise how important human rights are to this country. Perhaps if the Home Office had the connection with human rights, it would be the Department that might start to recognise and respect human rights.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman has had a few hours since the hon. Member for Gordon failed to answer the question, and he has thought up a really good answer. Perhaps he has worked out in the intervening period that his party might be trying to position itself in some form of coalition in the weeks ahead. That is extremely interesting. I commend him on trying to sort out a difficult situation. It might well come to that.
	The hon. Gentleman for Sheffield, Hillsborough[Interruption.] I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. I should have said the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

John Randall: It is equality.

Eleanor Laing: No. I never think that addressing a lady as a gentleman means equality. After all, a woman who seeks equality lacks ambition. The hon. Lady has been committed to these issues for many years, and she made a spirited speech today. I am sure that the whole House will wish her well in whatever the future holds for her.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made an impassioned speech in which he referred to respect and used the excellent phrase equality before the law. That is what this is all about. He and I have supported some slightly unpopular causes, and we have always been right; we are winning through. With his usual eloquence, he explained how the Bill could be improved, and I look forward to that happening in the near future. He asked the Minister an important question, of which I am sure she has taken note, about the obligations on public authorities in regard to equal pay. We look forward to hearing her answer.
	The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) has shown a consistent commitment to age equality. I recall the private Member's Bill that she introduced some time ago, about which she was extremely enthusiastic and on which she worked very hard. She made a good point today about the lack of a positive outlook on age. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) intervened on her to point out that the work force needed older people, and that is true. However, we must also remember that, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made such a dreadful mess of the pensions system, older people often no longer have a choice about whether to work; many of them have to work because the pensions in which they have invested during the whole of their working lives have been plundered by the Chancellor's taking 5 billion per annum out of private pension schemes. Surely we therefore owe it to the older people in society who have been forced to work when they want to retire to ensure that they should not be discriminated against when they apply for jobs. Let us not forget that, while most of us can never change our race or ethnic origin and very few of us change our sex, we shall all change our age. It would be rather short-sighted not to look forward to the time when that happens.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has been dedicated to promoting issues of disability, special needs education and equality for many years. He has committed himself to championing some unglamorous causes with his customary understatement and forensic accuracy. He is totally right to say that there is a business case for taking action. There is certainly a moral case for doing so, but there is also a business case. He also made some important suggestions on how the Bill could be improved, and I very much look forward to seeing him and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk introducing a new Bill when they become Ministers in a few weeks' time.

Keith Vaz: As the hon. Lady prepares for ministerial office, will she address the point that I made in my speech that it is important that the new commission should be located outside London? I put forward the view that Leicester would be an excellent place for it. Will she make an early commitment, before she becomes a Minister, to accept Leicester as the location?

Eleanor Laing: I think that I could make a commitment that, when I am in that position, I could come to Leicester to review the possibilities.

Keith Vaz: You are already wriggling.

Eleanor Laing: NoLeicester would be an excellent place. It is in the middle of country, so why not?
	The hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) was right to say that we must ensure that no teeth are lost in the streamlining process. I wonder whether that was in the Age Concern brief.

Robert Smith: Some of the new body's teeth are to promote human rights and the European convention in this country. Would the hon. Lady pull those teeth from the Bill under the leadership of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or would she keep them to promote the rights?

Eleanor Laing: The Conservative version of the Bill will have all the teeth that the measure currently possesses. That is a reasonable commitment.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) has been committed to equality for many years and she spoke passionately about it. That also applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who is right to make the case for small businesses and saving money. There is no point in putting three bodies into one if the costs increase. Creating one body out of three is the perfect opportunity to save costs; the public expenditure thereby saved could then be better spent on other things.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, East was right to say that members of all sectors of our society must be given opportunity on merit but, sadly, some parties on the fringes of British politics do not agree. I hope that very few people cast votes for those parties in the forthcoming general election.
	The hon. and learned Member for Redcar who is chairman of the all-party group on equalities, of which I am pleased to be an officer, as ever made an excellent and impassioned speech. We can all work together on the issue.
	The Bill is correct, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is good for the people of this country and our economy. We all believe in equality; let us go forward and try to achieve it.

Jacqui Smith: I agree with hon. Members from all parties about the quality of our debate today. I should like to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and, for an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). All have a proud record of campaigning for equality and against discrimination in the House, in our party and in their communities. I also put on record my welcome for the support from Opposition parties for the Bill, especially given that the measure is so ambitious, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said.
	The Bill needs to be ambitious because it aims to help nurture the sort of society that can meet with confidence the challenges of the future. We want a society in which, as the Bill makes clear in clause 3's groundbreaking fundamental duty, every individual can achieve their full potential and enjoy equal respect and dignity. We want a society in which every one of us has an equal chance to participate and contribute, and where our communities are strong, vibrant and celebrated as part of the essential fabric of modern Britain. The Bill is the latest step in the development of our equality and human rights framework. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, it builds on the excellent work of the existing equality commissions, to which I pay tribute, and that of many other organisations that strive to make Britain a better place for all.
	Despite the progress that we have made in the past 30 years, there is still too much evidence of persistent inequalities, whereby people's life chances are blighted because of who they are instead of enhanced by what they can bring to our workplaces, communities and civil society. Although our law has moved on, no institutions exist to enforce new regulations on sexual orientation, religion and beliefand, when they arrive, on age. Despite our historic human rights legislation, there is no institution providing advice on or promoting human rights. Individuals facing discrimination need to decide into which box they fit in order to get support, and employers large and small who want to do the right thing to tackle discrimination need to shop around for the right advice. The time is therefore right for a step change to meet those future challenges.

Tom Levitt: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No, because I am short of time. I am sorry.
	The single commission for equality and human rights will ensure greater impact, relevance, ease of access and coherence.
	I want to try to respond to some of the points made about the commission. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsboroughto whom I also extend my best wishes for what I know will continue to be an active and, in the broadest sense, political life following her retirement from the Housemade the case strongly for legislation to change culture. In particular, she argued that we need both promotion of the values of equality and diversity and sufficient enforcement powers to make a difference. I assure her that we have put in place the necessary teeth in terms of modern enforcement powers to ensure that the commission is able to do that.
	In relation to individual cases, which were raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), funding will come from the commission for equality and human rights budget. At the behest of stakeholders, we have not set down specific criteria on which cases should be supported. That will rightly be a decision for the commission to take, and will be part of its strategic planning in relation to spending priorities.
	I know that there is concern about rolling forward the provisions in sections 55 and 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is our intention that there will be no regression in the powers of the commission, particularly with regard to section 73. We are examining carefully what to do to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk on the point about freedom of information in relation to clause 6.
	I want to respond, however, to the point made about the state of the nation report and the function of the commission to monitor equality. That is an innovative new duty to measure progress on human rights and equality. It is important, of course, that the commission gets it right. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk argued that the process should happen every year. In fact, we will need to take time both to gather evidence and to ensure that the right indicators are in place. That is why clause 13 provides for wide consultation. It is important that that process should not be rushed. I assure him that under clause 44, the commission will be able to continue an action started by one of the three existing commissions.
	One of the important things about the commission will be the way in which it recognises the new nature of devolution in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North raised issues in relation to Wales. I assure her that members of the Wales committee, while appointed by the CEHR board, will in practice be appointed in consultation with the National Assembly for Wales. Of course, the chair of that committee will be the commissioner with special responsibility for Wales, who will have been appointed in agreement with the Assembly. We will of course want to ensure that the commission works closely with both the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the older persons' commissioner for Wales.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and others raised the issue of disability in particular. We have listened carefully and taken into consideration the recent history of development in relation to disability, not least the important progress made with the Disability Rights Commission. That is why we have made provision for a disability commissioner and disability committee. As my right hon. Friend said, many people in the disability world are now convinced and more confident that they will benefit from a commission that can not only give a strong voice to disabled people in determining progress on their legislation, which is right, but address cross-strand issues and be a more powerful and effective body.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East for his comments about the way in which the Government have tried to listen to the understandable concerns of black and ethnic minority communities, especially those represented by the Commission for Racial Equality, the 1990 Trust and others.
	We have listened, I believe that we have addressed those concerns, and I can give my hon. Friend this commitment: we will continue to listen to those communities and ensure that they have a voice through the commission. I entirely agree that we must ensure that both commissioners and staff represent a model for the diversity that we feel should be promoted.

Keith Vaz: Can my right hon. Friend also answer my question about the commission's location? Will she consider Leicester as a possible venue?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend wins today's prize for trying very hard on behalf of his constituency. I assure him that I will consider Leicesterat the same time as considering Redditch.
	As for the important issue of the significance of the commission for business, Members are right: the CBI has welcomed the establishment of a one-stop shop where all the business expertise will be in one place. I take particularly seriously the need to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses can benefit from that. The opportunity to build up regional support and to use intermediaries is especially important.
	Costs have been mentioned. I believe that savings will result from the combination of administration, property and other backroom services, but those savings must be ploughed back into front-line services. I therefore consider that 70 millionwhich builds on the 43.5 million currently being spent on the commissionis appropriate, given the commission's new responsibilities.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar and others rightly spoke of the importance of the commission's work on human rights. Human rights are about more than compliance, and the commission will enable us to take them out of the courtroom and on to the front line of public service delivery. That applies particularly to the promotion of public awareness, and to encouraging public authorities to comply with their obligations to undertake inquiries about human rights problem areas, give advice and intervene in cases. The commission must add value, however. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned additional enforcement powers, which we do not think would add value in the current circumstances. There is already a well-understood and well-used process for challenging alleged breaches of convention rights in courts and at tribunals. Nevertheless, like my hon. and learned Friend, I have no doubt that the commission will make a significant difference.
	In the limited time that remains, I want to deal with what has been said about the development of harmonised legislation. It is because we recognise the need to consider our discrimination legislation in detail that we have set up not just the equalities review but the discrimination law review. That will enable us to create a simpler, fairer legal framework with a view to introducing a single equality Bill in due course. I know that many Members, especially my hon. Friends, will welcome that. Certainly the case was made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. However, I do not think that we should delay this Bill for that purpose.
	Representatives of the new strands, in particular, think it important for us to make progress in giving them institutional support for the first time. The equalities review will enable the commission to begin its work with a proper understanding of where equalities persist, and the ability to make a real difference.
	The Bill marks a step along the journey towards a prosperous and fair society. It is, I believe, a better Bill than it was when we began to plan and consult on it. Its scope is wider, its powers are stronger and it is more effective and relevant. It is a good Bill, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

MENTAL CAPACITY BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme Motions),
	That the following proceedings shall apply to the Mental Capacity Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11th October 2004, as varied by the Orders of 12th October 2004 and 14th December 2004:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.[James Purnell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 97.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that Standing Orders state that, after the House has debated and divided on my amendment (a), any Division on an amendment will be in the hands of the Crown unless there is any free time at the end of the allocated period?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct, if all these matters can be discussed in the hour available. However, if the whole hour is devoted to his amendment, that will be the only one to be voted on, unless a Minister of the Crown were prepared to facilitate otherwise.

Jim Dobbin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification in respect of my amendment. Are you saying that there will not be a separate vote on that?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct, unless we dispose of other amendments in the hour at our disposal and are thus able to get to your amendment.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification on this matter. There will be a Division on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and I believe that there may be a subsequent vote on the lead amendment in the group. However, will the House have an opportunity to express its opinion on the remaining amendments in the group and on the amendments in the other two groups? If not, will the votes on the remaining amendments in the first group and on the amendments in the other two groups be taken separately?

Mr. Speaker: That would be the scenario, if we take the full hour on the first group. It is then a case of the knife coming down and everything else falling.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when the Bill was last debated in the House, letters exchanged between the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Archbishop of Cardiff were circulated to hon. Members. Has it been indicated to you whether further correspondence has taken place, and whether the Archbishop of Cardiff has made a statement following the proceedings in the other place?

Mr. Speaker: That is information that the right hon. Gentleman can draw out in the course of the debate.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For guidance, can you clarify that what you are saying to us essentially is that the House now has a choice between debating these important issues or voting on them? The Government's timetable has forced that on us, and here in the House of Commons we can have neither a proper debate nor the votes that we need to tease out these important issues. Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is using a point of order to express an opinion, which he is entitled to do from time to time, but I will not be drawn into whether I agree with that opinion or not.

Mental Capacity Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2
	  
	People who lack capacity

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may consider amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 2, Lords amendment No. 3 and amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 4 and amendments (a) to (e) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6, Lords amendment No. 7 and amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 14, 17 to 19, 22 and 23, Lords amendment No. 24 and amendment (b) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 71, 74 and 93.

Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1.
	I draw the attention of the House to other amendments that I have tabled in the first group: amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 3, amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4, amendments (b) to (e) to Lords amendment No. 4, amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 7, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 11. I have also signed amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 24 and others.
	I shall not go through the amendments in detail. As has already been made clear, we have only one hour and I know that many other hon. Members wish to get in. Each of the amendments was designed to demonstrate that, during the passage of the Bill through the House and another place, the Government have not met many of the major concerns of those who made representations to the Government during the consultation period and subsequently. There are many serious flaws in the Bill.
	On the point about the correspondence between the Archbishop and the Government, I know it is on the record in the other place, but the Archbishop has expressed his deep unhappiness with the fact that the Government, having given undertakings in the House, have not met them during the Bill's passage through the Lords. At the time of that rather messy conclusion to the debate in the House, a letter was circulated on the Government Benches which purported to suggest that there had been tacit agreement between the Government and, at that stage, Archbishop Smith about which amendments would be acceptable in the Lords. That was not circulated in all parts of the House. The Archbishop has said that the spirit and wording of that letter have not been met.

John Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Government circulated a letter among chosen Members of the House, that that letter was not revealed to the House, and that it now turns out that the promises contained in the letter were not carried through in the debates in the other House?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is pretty much the case. If my right hon. Friend reads Hansard, he will see clearly that most of that messy conclusion is fully recorded and that the Minister finally had to read out the letter so that everyone understood what was in it.

Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall give way only once more, because other hon. Members want to speak.

Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this week we have shown that there are limits to moral relativism and that not only does the Bill reek of moral relativism, but the way in which it has been conducted reeks of moral relativism? At the end of this hour surely we must have opportunities to state that there are absolute truths, such as the right to life.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree. The Bill contains a number of problems, but most importantly I am reminded that we have delayed business in this House because of the death of the Pope. Everyone celebrates his belief, but tonight we are discussing a Bill that cuts across that belief.
	Many hon. Members have faith and many do not. I do not want to speak on behalf of anyone, but the Government have a great opportunity to stand by their commitment in this House and the other place and say that they are against euthanasia in all its forms. They know very well that that is still not clear enough in the Bill and that it will be possible for someone who might otherwise live to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn because someone who was appointed as attorney believes that it is the right thing to do. The Government's problem is that the language used to modify the provision is still not strong enough. It still refers to motive, but the key word that should have been used throughout is purpose. The Bill should state that if someone acting as an attorney and making a decision can be demonstrated to have the purpose of ending someone's life, that decision should be null and void. That lies at the heart of all our debates.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House hold strong opinions about the matter. They have behaved impeccably, with great honour, and have consulted across the Floor of the House to ensure that we have compromised enough and that the amendments are right. Throughout the passage of the Bill amendments tabled by Back Benchers have offered the Government a solution. They have not always been perfect, but they have been available to ensure that the Bill shuts the door on euthanasia by omission. That is the problem. We now have the prospect of a Bill being railroaded through the House when the Government know full well that they do not have the backing of the vast majority of Members of this House. Labour Members who are not prepared to be dragooned by threats or promises have chosen to oppose it honourably. I simply do not understand how the Minister responsible for the matter or his colleagues in the other place can put their hands on their hearts and genuinely say that they believe that the Bill is now strong enough to exclude the possibility of euthanasia by omission. Someone charged as an attorney could make a decision with the purpose of ending life. That is in the Bill.

John Redwood: My right hon. Friend is doing a marvellous job for a noble cause. Can he explain why, when the Government say that they share our wish not to make euthanasia legal, they cavil at putting words into the Bill that would guarantee that?

Iain Duncan Smith: The Government have got themselves into a terrible state about whether the provisions that we are discussing might have affected the judgment in the Bland case. I accept that that is one of their main concerns. They have been anxious to get the Bill through because many charities want it. There is a legitimate reason for that and I do not cavil at it, but what bothers me is that the Government have split the difference. Ultimately the problem boils down to a word or, in the case of their hon. Friends' amendment, a single line. It would cost them nothing, even now, to turn to their Back Benchers who tabled the amendment and agree to include it in the Bill. Even I would be satisfied that that would at last safeguard the problems that we are talking about. They cannot even bring themselves to do that. That is essentially what happens when civil servants take control of an issue and Ministers are, as happens too often, driven by those civil servants. They are generalists, in this particular case, who do not understand, or do not wish to understand, the deep problems that exist in some of the wording that they will allow to go through.
	We have limited time and I wish to draw to a close. I shall not talk in detail about the problems, but will simply say that one simple principle is at stake. We have a Bill that has been through a fair amount of debate in both Houses and which, in its last phases, is about to be driven through at speed by a Government who appear, or who give the sense of appearing, to be frightened of further debate, because that debate would expose the reality that the Bill is deeply flawed. The Bill is unlike most others that the House passes and votes on: most Bills are not likely to end in death for somebody who is subject to its failures. That is the reality of this Bill, however. Somebody in future years may find themselves incapable of speaking or controlling events for themselves and relying on someone else whose motivation and purpose is not what it should be. They will have food and fluids withdrawn. In short, they will lose their life. That is the difference between this Bill and many others.
	It is not too much to say that a Government who have refused to give their own side a free vote, who have railroaded their own Members as hard as they can, and who have refused to accept the advice or helpful assistance of almost everybody who wanted to see the Bill through, albeit with safeguards, show an arrogance that simply will not stand up over the next few years. I guaranteeit is a small prophecythat in future years the Bill will be challenged, and I hope that it happens soon. They will be forced to bring it back to reverse some of the provisions that they have allowed to go through.
	I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to take the Government at their word in the House the last time the Bill was before us. They said that they intended to do the decent thing; they have not. I urge Members to vote for my amendment and to vote down all the Government amendments.

Jim Dobbin: I have spent long periods in consultation on the Bill and in negotiation with officials and Ministers in both Houses. I must record that I will strike a slightly different tone from that of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), in that I welcome much of what has happened and many of the amendments that have been made. I speak, I know, for Archbishop Peter Smith in saying that.
	My recent amendment to Lords amendment No. 24 highlights an area in which I still feel there is room for movement by the Government, however. The Bill has been debated at length and amended in specific areas. The area I am talking about now is that of advance decisions. My amendment deals with advance directives and whether suicidally motivated advance directives should be given force in the Bill to bring about a person's death.
	My amendment seeks to close a glaring loophole in the Bill as drafted. Advance decisions, as the Government have acknowledged, are not covered by the welcome declaratory provision formerly contained in clause 58, now in clause 61, that restates that the Bill does not change the law on assisted suicide. We need to be extremely clear about that. The preservation of the prohibition in the Suicide Act 1961 on assisting suicide will not stop doctors being forced by the unamended Bill to engage in what many regard, in common sense, as complicity in expressly suicidal refusals of treatment. We need to be clear, too, as the Government have acknowledged, that the best interest criteria in the Bill do not apply to advance decisions. We welcome those best interest clauses.
	In my view, the Bill will, if unamended, give statutory force to expressly suicidally motivated advance decisions. As night follows day, this glaring loophole will be exploited by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which will promote carefully drafted advance decisions that will force doctors to be complicit in assisted suicide and may make a mockery of our prohibition against assisted suicide.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said on Report before Christmas, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society is determined to use advance decisions to weaken our legal prohibition against euthanasia, and I feel that the form in which advance decisions are included in the Bill will give it a helping hand. It is interesting that the society has been strangely silent all through the passage of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the publication this week of the House of Lords Select Committee report on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, introduced in the other place by Lord Joffe, a member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, underlines the statement that my hon. Friend has just made in this House?

Jim Dobbin: Yes, I agree entirely. There is a determination by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to make sure that that Bill, introduced in the Lords for the second time, will re-emerge at some time in the future.
	My amendment was drafted by Professor Finnis, a professor of law at Oxford university and an internationally renowned authority on these matters. Obviously the Government believed that he was a competent witness, as it were, because they happily engaged with him in the preparation of clause 61, and he was happy to take part in that discussion. Professor Finnis argues that if we approve the Bill without closing the loophole, the Bill will carelessly introduce a new culture of prescribing death by the artifice of arranged and managed omissions. That is the view of the person who helped to draft the declatory provision in the first place.
	The Archbishop of Cardiff said:
	Professor Finnis and I believe that a further amendment is still needed to ensure that the Bill confers no authority on expressly suicidal advance decisions. We therefore strongly support efforts of Members of both Houses who are seeking to introduce an amendment to exclude decisions from being given validity or authority by a Bill where they have a purpose of bringing about death or are motivated by a desire of doing so.
	I had a letter today from Archbishop Peter Smith which backs up that statement. He added:
	I very much hope the government will reconsider its opposition to inserting such an amendment, which we firmly believe can be made without affecting the jurisdiction of the courts affirmed in the Bland case.
	That, too, is a very clear statement that there is no wish by the hierarchy or Professor Finnis to overturn the Bland judgement; the amendment would not do that. Professor Finnis was asked to draw up the amendment on the basis of that being the case, and that is what he has endeavoured to do.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend said some moments ago that he believed that clause 61 did not protect people in the case of an advance directive. Will he explain why he thinks that is the case? My reading of the clause is completely the opposite.

Jim Dobbin: That is the legal advice that I have been given, and I understand that it is also the Government's positionperhaps the Minister will want to clarify that later.
	The amendment would not force doctors to keep treating a dying, unconscious patient where the treatment was futile and even where the family expressed the wish for the patient to die peacefully at home. By contrast, the amendment would not prevent doctors from giving palliative treatment to a dying patient if foreseeably that might shorten the patient's life. We have had a superb example of that in recent days. In his last days, the Holy Father displayed the true meaning of dying with dignity. He did not ask for all the stops to be pulled out to keep him alive; he even declined to return to hospital, preferring to die at home, at the Vatican. He demonstrated that those of us opposed to any weakening of the legal prohibition and assisted suicide are not vitalists, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that today.
	Without the amendment, we have only clause 4(5), the best interests provision, which prevents anyone, in considering a person's best interests, from being motivated by a desire to bring about death, but the clause does not apply to advance decisions, as the Government have made clear. Without my amendment it would be possible under the Bill for an expressly suicidal advance decision to be legal and binding on the doctor with care of the patient.
	Throughout discussion of the Bill, I have not doubted the Government's good intentions, but good law is far more important. In addition to the loophole that I have already identified, there is nothing in the Bill to deal with a dangerous situation such as the one we witnessed in the United States last week in the Terri Schiavo case, where the attorney had a vested financial interest in the incapacitated patient's premature death. We do not want to get into such a situation, but if the Bill is not amended we shall be starting down that dangerous road. It is not too late for the Government to amend the Bill, and many people up and down the country, who are closely monitoring today's events, will be sorely disappointed if the Government fail to respond appropriately.
	I accept your ruling about a vote on my amendment, Mr. Speaker. In that event, I should seek powerful reassurances from the Government that all the concerns that I have raised in my speech be taken into consideration and covered in some detail.

Tim Boswell: It would be redundant and tedious for the House if I were to go on at length about the difficulties in which the Government have put us by their choice of the programme motion that the House has just passed. It is a matter of record that after the most exhaustive consideration in the other place, including three hours on Third Readingwhen, as the Minister knows, the convention is to move and consider amendmentsit has fallen to us to consider a huge range of Lords amendments, and amendments proposed thereto, in a mere hour. That has put the House in a difficult position.
	I genuinely have not reached a final conclusion about my course of action at the end of the debate, so it would help me if the Minister could give the House two assurances. He needs some time to explain his position. First, will he tell the House straight that in his considered view there is no possibility of euthanasia by omission in any circumstances under the Bill? My second fundamental concern relates to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) when he spoke about his all-party amendment. Will it be possible to conclude a valid advance directive, on which there would be an implied obligation to act, by somebody with a suicidal motive? I am not legally informed, and it seems that there is a clash of legal opinion on the matter, but it is my understanding that, if somebodyas in any other casesought to take suicidal action, it would invalidate such a decision. Furthermore, if somebody were to assist them in complying with that apparent advance directive, that would still be tantamount to assisting suicide and would be covered by clause 61. It is terribly important that the Minister clarify that.
	Bearing in mind the downsidethat unresolved issues in the Bill could lead to its fall and that there would be real drawbacks if it were aborted because of these continuing concernsthe Minister owes it to the House to get things absolutely straight so that we can consider his assurances and take appropriate action.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Lords amendments. I shall centre my comments on amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 24, tabled in my name and that of many other Members.
	I was present on Second Reading and privileged to sit on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill. I am pleased that some of the concerns that we expressed in the Chamber and in Committee were accepted by the Lords and are reflected in their amendments. I am pleased that we have moved to written advance directives. That is immensely important and provides huge reassurance, but I am deeply concerned about our failure adequately to address advance directions and the admissions within that.
	It is still possible for an individual to specify in an advance directive that they do not wish to receive food or water. That individual is essentially giving other individuals the right to kill them either through hunger or dehydration. Neither method of death is humane. We would not tolerate them for an animal, nor for any other people in society who are fit, able and capable of deciding for themselves, but it seems that we will tolerate those methods of death for the most vulnerable of all in our society.
	For those reasons, I cannot agree to the Bill, which does not afford protection to people in that position. While people are incapacitated and in that state, they cannot stand for themselves, but others will. I personally would not want to stand by and see someone die of starvation. I would not want to see them die of dehydration. I would go to court to say, If the Government have given licence to this individual to die using the method of starvation or dehydration, I want to challenge that because it is inhumane. It would not be right for me as a family member, an advocate, a deputy or a friend to stand by and watch that happen. If the Government have allowed that individual to exercise that right, why should they decide the means? Why should they decide the time? If that individual elects to die, why should we not allow them to do so in the manner of their choosing and at a time of their choosing? That is why, as the clauses that relate to advance directives have not been amended, it is effectively euthanasia by omission.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the House will have to deal with the issue again. Just as the Bland judgment brought us to this point with the Bill, we will be brought back and asked to codify the law.

George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to continue.
	We will be asked to codify the decisions made by the courts. Who could resist an argument that rules out death by starvation or dehydration? Certainly, I do not think that any hon. Member would want to see such a provision remain. That will be on the statute book and we will be given a clear choice: it is either that or death by lethal injection at a time of the individual's choosing. That is where we will end up. I do not want to go thereit is the wrong place to be. This is the wrong Bill to achieve that purpose. If the Houses of Parliament want to discuss euthanasia, let them do so openly. The Labour party is being whipped on this issue. I find that personally very objectionable. The Bill should not be whipped.
	I may remain deeply concerned about the Bill and its impact. I do not doubt for a moment the numerous benefits associated with the Bill, and they are long awaited. I openly welcome and embrace many of the measures, but we have made a serious mistake. It is not too late for the Minister to accede, although I have received no indication that he will, so I await with interest the first judgments that we will receive from the courts. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society has been quiet, because it expects to go to court with this issue.
	I will resist any further temptation to legalise euthanasia by omission and I ask colleagues and my hon. Friend the Minister to embrace the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), to try to take on board some of the deep reservations that we still have and to afford those individuals who depend on us most the sort of care and concern that we all have for them but have expressed in different ways this evening.

Paul Burstow: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have pursued their concerns about aspects of the Bill during its passage. I certainly echo the comments of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the adequacy of the time that we have tonight to do justice to those concerns. However, anyone who has read the proceedings of the other House's consideration of the Bill and the detailed exchanges of views that took place among those with legal and medical backgrounds cannot fail to have been impressed by the way in which the other place considered the legislation and diligently advanced the improvements to it that are before us tonight. The Bill has been significantly improved by that process.
	On Report, I added my name to several amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) about the question of purpose. Having read and studied the matters considered in the other place in some detail, the amendment that he has tabled tonight raises other concerns.
	I was especially struck by an exchange on Report in the other place on 15 March. My noble friend Lord Carlile put seven points to the Government, two of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Daventry: whether the Bill could be stretched in such a way as to allow euthanasiavoluntary or otherwiseby the back door or through the front door, and whether it could allow assisted suicide and whether advance directives could allow someone with suicidal intent to use the Bill for that purpose. The answers to those questions are set out in great detail at column 1278 of the relevant Hansard, so I urge hon. Members who still have worries to study it. I hope that the Minister will be able to reaffirm what was said in the other place.
	Advance decisions are important and clearly still cause concern. They cannot require doctors to do anything and would not require them to do anything that would aid and abet a suicide. English law is clear that no person can ask for assistance in committing suicide by refusing treatment, but the Bill puts into statute the common-law right to refuse treatment. The important thing is that the Bill errs on the side of life. It protects doctors. If doctors had any doubt about the state of mind of individuals when they wrote their advance decisions or when they lost capacity, or if medicine had moved on so that things of which individuals were not aware became possible, doctors could step in and act to safeguard life. Surely we should celebrate that as a way in which the Bill has moved forward.
	I was struck forcefully by an example cited in the other place about Jehovah's Witnesses, who, on the ground of strongly held convictions, refuse blood transfusions. They may do that while they have capacity, but if several of the amendments tabled tonight were accepted, they would not be able to have their views, wishes and valuestheir belief systemrespected through the treatment that they received if they lost capacity. If they had a car crash, someone else could decide, against their belief, that they should have a blood transfusion. We are talking about the right of individuals to refuse treatment, or their personal autonomy. We must be careful when we encroach on people's autonomy, although I think that the Bill tries to avoid doing that by carefully constructing a framework to safeguard the individual.

Edward Leigh: If it is true that the Bill errs on the side of life, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there would thus be absolutely no harm in accepting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), because that would mean that the Bill would say that an advance directive could not be used to lead to a situation in which a person would not be given life-sustaining treatment in the form of fluid or another substance? Why not put that provision in the Bill? Surely the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) accepts that.

Paul Burstow: I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to that amendment

Ronnie Campbell: How will you vote on it?

Paul Burstow: Surely listening carefully to an argument and then coming to a conclusion is what we should be doing in this place. That is what free votes are all about, and a free vote is what my party is having on this matter. I shall listen to the Minister's response to the reasoned and reasonable arguments made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton. My concern is that the way in which the amendment is formulated sows the seeds of confusion where there is currently no confusion in law. That is why I am not convinced that the amendment should be supported and currently I do not intend to support it. I shall listen to what the Minister has to say. That is not an unreasonable position to adopt.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman says, and in my view it cannot be disputed, that if, say, a Jehovah's Witnessa sentient personrefuses a blood transfusion, that is a conscious act by a sentient person and it is perhaps equivalent to suicide. However, we are not dealing with suicide as such. We are dealing with what happens if a Jehovah's Witness refuses a blood transfusion for his or her child, which is a very different matter from an adult sentient person refusing medical treatment out of conviction.

Paul Burstow: As I understand the legislation, that would not be possible in those circumstances. I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
	The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green are well intentioned and I understand them entirely, but clause 4(5) deals with the matter in a way that enables us not to confuse English law. By using the word purpose, we would inadvertently put into law a provision that could have the effect of criminalising an act that we all want to happenthat is, the act of giving palliative care and providing assistance and pain relief at the end of life. The amendments might make that unlawful.
	The Bill contains so much that is good and important about a person's quality of life and their right to lead their life as they choose that it should make its way on to the statute book today. However, I hope that the Minister can respond to the many concerns that have been aired during this short debate.

George Howarth: I wish to cover two matters: the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), and the assertion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). If I misrepresent my hon. Friend's views, I am happy to be corrected by her, but the burden of her argument seemed to be that it is always, in every circumstance, in a patient's best interest to receive food and hydration. I think that that was her point.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: No. I do not wish to imply that every person, irrespective of their state, should receive food and fluid, only that people who are living with a condition should do so. When someone begins to die and food and fluid become burdensome, they should be withdrawn. However, if the person is not dying and has no other threatening condition, but needs only food and fluid to survive, that person should receive food and fluid.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification, but I think that that formulation would lead to enormous confusion. At some point, someone has to decide when the provision of food and fluid is in a person's best interest and when it is not. My other problem with that argument is that, having listened to medical evidence, like many other hon. Members, I am aware that the pain and suffering of patients with certain conditions can be aggravated by hydration in particular.
	The second point that I wanted to make is in response to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middletonthat clause 61 does not apply in cases where there is an advance directive. That is not my reading of the position now that the Bill has been amended by the House of Lords. I do not know where my hon. Friend is getting his advice from, but I suspect that he is wrong in this instance. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that my interpretation of the positionthat clause 61 would override the circumstances that my hon. Friend describesis right, or whether my hon. Friend is right.
	Secondly, does the Minister accept the burden of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby about food and water? Would there be circumstances where people would feel it absolutely necessary to go ahead with feeding or hydrating people through tubes even though it would not necessarily be in their best interests?

Gerald Kaufman: We recognise that these are agonising issues. Recent events in the United States, which we have seen on television, have shown just how agonising these issues are. They are not simple issues, but there is a simple issue behind what some of us seek to achieve, which is to prevent legislation that would allow euthanasia by the back door. That is what has motivated my approach to the Bill from the beginning.
	I am baffled by the way in which the Government have handled the Bill from the beginning of its passage through Parliament. If I am fortunate enough to be re-elected in four weeks' time, I shall have sat in the House a few weeks after that for 35 years. Never have I known a Government handle a Bill of this sort in this way. To begin with, no Bill that I have been involved in, dealing with issues of this kind, has been whipped. It has been a tradition of my partyI am not interested in how the other parties conduct themselvesthat on issues of conscience such as capital punishment, gay rights or abortion, we are not whipped.
	I pleaded with the Government, both at meetings of the parliamentary Labour party and at private meetings with the Chief Whip, not to whip us on this Bill. It is still beyond my understanding why we are being whipped. It is totally beyond me. Yet we are proceeding with the Bill and with the aspects with which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is dealing in his amendments, on the basis of an extraordinary preoccupation that it is vital, in the dying stages of this Parliament, with only a few days left, that this piece of legislation survives.
	This is not a Labour Billit did not originate within the Labour party. It is not a manifesto commitment. The Bill originated 16 years ago under the previous Conservative Government as an omission by the Law Commission. For some reason, it has now surfaced as a piece of legislation that a Labour Government, working hard to get themselves re-elected for an historic third term, believe is essential and should receive Royal Assent.

Kevin Barron: Besides the issue of the Whip, is not the answer that people outside the House who have worked with people with mental incapacity for the past decade or more have been waiting for legislation of this breadth to come along, to give those people the rights that society has denied them for far too long?

Gerald Kaufman: I accept every word that my right hon. Friend says when he refers to the breadth of the legislation. Every one of us has received letters this week from esteemed charities saying that they want the Bill to become law, and I am not arguing with my right hon. Friend about that. However, he rightly suggests that this is a matter of conscience. This ought not to be a matter of contention between political parties; it should be a matter of honest and respected disagreement between right hon. and hon. Members of the House.

Kevin Barron: If the Bill were about putting euthanasia on to the statute book, is it not the case that we would have a free vote on it?

Gerald Kaufman: That depends on how we interpret it. The fact is that, when the Bill came before the House of Commons last December, and when we were dealing with the very issues on which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has tabled his amendment, the Government were so concerned that it should not be defeated that we got the exhibition of correspondence between the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Archbishop of Cardiff being circulated among Labour Back Bencherssomething else that I have not seen before in my 35 years in the House. I have never known anything like that to happen on an issue of conscience. What that told us was that the Government had accepted, very belatedly, that this was an issue of conscience. In order to seek to assuage the consciences of a considerable number of Labour Members, they circulated that correspondence. That day, the Prime Minister is said to have been on the telephone to the Cardinal Archbishop in an effort to get an agreement with him that would persuade right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House.
	I do not want the Bill to fall, but I recognise the concerns that are being expressed. Many of us have personal experience of these matters. I had a sister who died after having suffered from Alzheimer's disease for many years. I have an elder brother who does not know me when I go to see him; he, too, is suffering from Alzheimer's. My sister's son and my brother's daughter are loving children. Fine, but we cannot assume that, in a situation relating to the amendment that we are now considering, my nephew and niece would be typical. That is why we have sought the safeguards that we are debating this evening.
	I accept that improvements have been made to the Bill in the House of Lords. That cannot be denied. After all, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is tabling an amendment to a Lords amendment. If we compare the Bill with the one that left the House of Commons in December, there is no doubt that it has been improved. However, it still contains this loophole, which causes a twinge of agony to many of us who understand the circumstances in which these decisions might well be made. That is why what my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) and for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) are saying is important. They are disputing a matter of ethics that impinges on the very nature of human life. What I want to hear from the Minister is either that the contents of the letter from the Archbishop of Cardiff to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor have been effected to the Archbishop's satisfaction, or a clear and specific assurance that will assuage hon. Members' consciences because we are considering a clause and an amendment about conscience. We are considering human life and the deepest single issue that relates to human beings.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are listening to an interesting speech, but we have less than 12 minutes to hear from the Minister. Can we get on to the Minister's speech as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) appreciates the time.

Gerald Kaufman: I apologise to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh); I was not looking at the clock and I did not note when the debate was due to end. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is essential to hear from the Minister before reaching a decision. I shall therefore sit down, but I hope that the Government take account of the fact that people feel very uneasy at this stage of the debate.

David Lammy: When we considered the Bill on Report, concerns were expressed about attorneys and deputies and people who would seek to harm those at the end of their lives. Along with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, I undertook to continue dialogue with the Catholic Church and specifically Archbishop Peter Smith. Much has been said in his name tonight and I want to assure hon. Members that amendment No. 4, which proposes a new subsection (5) to clause 4, goes to the heart of the points that he made. He was quoted in Committee in the other place on 25 January 2005 and also said in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) that proposed new subsection (5),
	makes it explicit that the Bill does not give authority to doctors, proxies or other third parties considering a patient's best interests to make any decision that is motivated by a desire to kill the person.

Jim Dobbin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lammy: In a moment. The concerns that have been expressed in the debate today relate not to the best interests aspect of the Bill but to advance decisions. That is all that is left for the House to determine. We should remember that it is possible to make an advance decision nowthat fact was lost in some parts of the discussion. An advance decision does not mean electing for suicide. The Government stand firm on suicide and have continually made that clear. We did that in relation to clause 58 and best interests and in the context of advance decisions.

Tim Boswell: Will the Minister give way?

David Lammy: Let me finish. One can make an advance decision now. The House has to decide whether to vote for the additional safeguards on advance decisions for which the Bill provides or to retain the current position, with no safeguards. Let me list those safeguards because it is important to set them out. First, importantly, under this Bill, if a doctor is not satisfied, he can decide that he will not accept the advance decision as valid and applicable. We therefore either vote to give the doctor that right, or we leave it, and doctors will not have that security.

Helen Jones: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, and I accept his view that this Bill has been much improved in the House of Lords. Will he address, however, the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) in relation to ensuring that we prevent advance directives containing suicidal intentions from being carried out? If, as the Minister said, that is the Government's intentionI accept his honest view on thatwhat is wrong with accepting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton?

David Lammy: The Bill

Jim Dobbin: I just want to follow up with the rest of the letter. The archbishop goes on to say:
	But this amendment still leaves a major gap. It does not cover advance decisions. The clauses dealing with advance decisions, although tightened up, still leave open the possibility that an expressly suicidal advance decision is binding.

David Lammy: As I was saying, doctors cannot now be forced to accept advance decisions, because, under the Bill, if they are not satisfied, they do not have to do so. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), the Bill states specifically that someone must have capacity and be able to weigh information. Someone who is suicidally motivated cannot legally do those things

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really hope that this is a point of order.

William Cash: It is indeed. The Minister has just been referring to issues that he claims have been raised by the Archbishop of Cardiff, which is not the case. He is using that as evidence against a professor of law

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really knew that that was not a point of order.

David Lammy: In addition, there are provisions under clauses 25(5) and (6) of the Bill in relation to the person who elects to have an advance decision. Let us be clear that the Government are not saying that people must have an advance decision; we are accepting that there are those in our community who want to make advance decisions and refuse certain types of treatment. We are accepting that Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and all sorts of people want to make that decision. That is why the Bill is supported by the Alzheimer's Society, Age Concern, Mencap and the mental health community, who have written to all Members of the House to argue for the Bill. They have said that it is necessary.

Iain Duncan Smith: I realise that we are short of time. Let me make sure that the Minister clearly understands the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin). If the Minister says that the Government's determination and intention is that advance decisions should not represent suicidal intentions, all that he has to do is amend the provision as follows:
	a decision or statement complies with this subsection only if
	the amendment says
	it does not state a desire to bring about P's death by forgoing that treatment.
	Why is that so hard to do if, as he says, that is the Government's intention?

David Lammy: I would have thought that that was patently obvious. The reason is that that would force people to stay and die in hospital[Interruption.] It would mean that people cannot elect to die at home. That would be the consequence

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had a good say in this debate. He must allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

David Lammy: There will always be a difficult balance between personal autonomythe person's right to say, No, thanks, not for meand having the right safeguards governing that, to allow doctors to say, I am not satisfied, and to ensure that someone has all their mental faculties and is capable of making their decision.

Edward Leigh: rose

George Howarth: rose

David Lammy: Our further amendment today says that where someone recognises that the risk is to their life, they must make a further statement that is written and witnessed.
	On all those counts, while the law makes it clear that we do not support assisted suicideMembers will remember the Diane Pretty case, which went to the European Court of Human Rights and was effectively thrown outI urge Members who are concerned about advance decisions and would not choose to make such decisions themselves, but who want to ensure that safeguards exist, to vote for the Bill. They will be ensuring that doctors can make the decision, and that it is in writing that people can make an advance decision only when they are capacitated. On that basis, I commend a Bill for which we have waited 15 years, and for which outside organisations are campaigning.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 240.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment. [Mr. Ainger.]
	The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 68.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 69. If it is agreed to, an appropriate entry will be made in the Journal.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in their remaining amendments.
	The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 51.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 95 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

HIV/AIDS (AFRICA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Ainger]

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate about HIV/AIDS orphans and vulnerable children in sub-Saharan Africa. This has been an historic day in the middle of a remarkable week, and I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on an issue on which Labour has set the agenda not just for the country but for the world. It is this Labour Government who have led the world in tackling debt relief, global poverty, trade reform and HIV/AIDS and who have, more recently, been leading the debate on the future of Africa. Those are policies that have resonated around the country, with young and old, and around the world. They have been a hallmark of the values that we in the Labour party hold dear, and a shining beacon of Labour's achievements and of the kind of world that we want to create.
	The group that I want to talk about, however, is one for which there is still a desperate need for support. We will all have our images and memories from the past four years of this Parliament. Certainly for me, the saddest ones were of the HIV/AIDS orphans whom I saw and met in sub-Saharan Africa. A whole generation of children are growing up without parents and, so often, without hope. On a personal level, I found that to hold one of these little children, so very fragile that the wind could blow them away, was one of the saddest experiences of my whole life. To see them growing up alone in their huts in the African countryside or on the streets of African cities, children who have literally been abandoned to fend as best they can in a harsh, cruel world, is tragic. There is a whole generation of these children: some 12 million now, some 25 million by 2010. Whatever happens to HIV and AIDSand there are signs that in some places infection rates may, thankfully, be slowing downthe number of orphans will rise inexorably.
	One person described that generation to me as the brick wall that Africa is heading for, and quite apart from the human tragedy, these children are also a massive social and development challenge. They will grow up mostly without health, without schooling, without social skills, often with illness and with high levels of crime and delinquency. My hon. Friend the Minister knows the statistics; they are horrendous, so I will not recite them.
	This evening I want to press my hon. Friend on what the Government are doing about the orphans and vulnerable children within their overall HIV/AIDS strategy and to press for funding for community-based services. I am grateful to a number of agencies for their help, support, advice and, indeed, inspiration over the past 18 months. One is World Vision, whose work for HIV/AIDS orphans I have seen in Lesotho, South Africa and Ethiopia. Another is UNICEF, which arranged for me to see HIV/AIDS orphans work in Mozambique, and has provided advice and support. Another is NCH, which has provided advice on child care policies; often HIV/AIDS work focuses on health care, whereas work with orphans and vulnerable children needs to be guided by sound child care policies. SABMiller has also provided valuable insights from its experience in sub-Saharan Africa.
	Most of all, I want to pay tribute to the community-based organisations that do such remarkable work in the most difficult circumstances to look after these children. The Kenyan Network of Women Against Aids, which cares for some 1,300 children in Nairobi, provides food for children five days a weekincluding teenage girls, to keep them from prostituting themselves just for the price of a meal. It provides meals during the week, but at weekends it cannot, so the children do not eat at weekends. Yet that organisation, which advises the Kenyan Government, receives international delegations and has, I believe, organised events for the UK Government, does not have secure funding. Children in my constituency twinned with KENWAthe Kenya Network of Women with Aids/HIVand sent the orphans gifts last Christmas, which was a most heart-warming experience.
	There is also Kuvumbane in Mozambique, which supports 900 women with HIV/AIDS and about 2,000 orphans. It is based in Xai-Xai, the capital of the province of Gaza, just three hours' drive on a tarred road north of Maputu, so it is not a remote project, yet it has no regular funding. It has occasional supplies of food from the World Food Programme and teams of volunteers, most of them completely unpaid, to provide community-based care, but with no equipment at all.
	I went out with that organisation recently and saw a family of orphan children living in a hut on their own. The thatched roof had been damaged, so the rain came in and the younger children had coughs and colds. They also had fungal disease on their heads. The youngest was only a year old when his mother died a year ago, and we can only imagine what his prospects are. I met another family of five children whose father had died a couple of years ago. When I arrived, their mother was lying down, desperately ill with AIDS. She managed to stand up and speak briefly and we could but wonder at the horror for those children of watching their surviving parent die.
	I shall remember for a long time the plight of another young woman. She was not a child, but she was very young to be dying such a horrible death. Her parents had died. Her aunt had died. She had no siblings and her own baby died at a year old. When I arrived, she was lying on the floor of her hut moaning. She could not drink and was in complete agony. A volunteer was with her, the only person to be there at her death; but there were no painkillers to ease her suffering and give her more dignity in dyingno mattress, no pillow. Nothing. The lack of resources for community care is horrific.
	There are several projects in Zimbabwe, in Harare and Bulawayo, which probably do not want to be identified, but where people have thought through with the greatest attention sophisticated strategies for child care. They shelter children from abuse by the police and take them off the streets. They help them with memory books so that they can come to terms with the loss of their parents. Most of all, they feed childrennot enough to satisfy them, but it keeps them from starving.
	People who undertake such work have commitment and are enormously dedicated, with the insight and thought to care for children, but they completely lack the resources to put care services in place. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister can point to the policies of the Government, their support for the UNICEF framework and the money to implement policies. It is true that the UK Government have led the way in combating HIV/AIDS with financial resources, support for the use of anti-retrovirals, the allocation of funds for orphans and in pressing for a more co-ordinated approach to the UNICEF framework, but there is an issue about delivery. The best intentions in the world will fail if they are not efficiently implemented and monitored, and there are some difficulties with that.
	Of the 150 million that the Department for International Development has set aside for HIV/AIDS orphans and vulnerable children, 85 million is being spent through the Department's African country programmes. Some of the money is going into budget support for Governments to advance their national orphans and vulnerable children plans. Having spent some time looking at the work in six of the sub-Saharan countries most affected by HIV/AIDS, it is not at all clear, with the exception of South Africa, that there is any capacity to deliver programmes. There are not even departments to run them. Even if there are central Government departments, there are no regional or local structures so that policies and resources can cascade down.
	To say that is not to belittle those countries. Complex services are needed and they are difficult to deliver. After all, only under the Labour Government have we had a Minister for children and co-ordinated children's services across Government. In Kenya, the department with lead responsibility for children is the equivalent of our Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and children's services are very much a junior partner. In Lesotho, the First Lady has responsibility for such services. I had long discussions with her. She is an inspiring woman with a deep commitment and a profound understanding of what is needed to bring about change in her country, but she is not actually in government and has no departmental resources. The situation in Zimbabwe is desperate; for example, in Bulawayo, the second city, there are fewer social workers than there are Zimbabwean social workers in the social services department of one outer London hospital.
	If the money is to deliver services, there must be some clear accounting for how it is spent. Providing a form of words to fit the policy requirement simply will not deliver the services on the ground that children need. Perhaps what is needed is a kind of barium meal for the international community's financial systems, which would trace the money that goes from the British taxpayer to the delivery of services for the orphans and vulnerable children in sub-Saharan Africa.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have put a proposal to him for a funding stream structure that could provide financial support directly to the community-based services concerned. In practical terms, that would provide support where it is most needed: at the community level where the caring takes placefood for the feeding schemes, hygiene items for the home-visiting schemes, school fees or, where school is free, money for school books and uniforms, and money to re-thatch hut roofs. The organisations that carry out those activities operate well below the radar of national and international Government agencies, but they are able to provide the small-scale interventions that make all the difference to enable children to have some reasonable prospect for the future.
	Such a proposal would also have two other important functionsfirst, to develop and systematise community care programmes. That is desperately important. It is better understood in the communities that I visited in Africa than it has ever been in the UK that children belong in their own homes, not in residential institutions. What is needed to keep them in their own homes is, as I said, a complex network of small-scale interventions.
	Such interventions include, for example, help with getting birth certificates, so that children can get Government grants for free schooling, which is the kind of thing that I saw the volunteers of Kuvumbane do for the children in Mozambique; protection of their property rights, so that they can keep ownership of their parents' homes, which is often the first step to being able to provide them with a secure life after their parents have died; help with food and clothing; and home visiting by an adult. Home visiting also includes providing the help, psychological support and counselling that children need when they are grieving the loss of their parents. That is something that we do not often think about, because we so often think about how to feed children who are hungry, rather than how to comfort them when they are mourning. Those are very hard services to develop and deliver, and they may have to be provided from the base up, rather from central Government down.
	The other big purpose that such a funding stream would achieve is to support African civil society. In a number of cases, the organisations that I have visited group together into some kind of network, but they very much lack the resources to develop and to extend their work and impact through their countries.
	The amounts of money needed for such activity are quite small, and I fully recognise that it is impossible for the UK Government to provide individual grants at such a small scale and localised level. Arguably, the level is too small even for the country Governments. It is the kind of function that, in this country, local government would undertake, and could be managed by a group of organisationsindeed, some organisations have expressed an interest in doing so.
	Half of everything that we know, we learn in the first five years. We in this country recognise, in providing services for our own children, that those early years are when we must put in the investment if we are to influence the adults of the future and the shape of society in future.
	The wheels of the international community may be grinding on this issue, but they grind extremely slowly. Those children cannot wait for the money that has been earmarked for them to trickle down. I press my hon. Friend the Minister to give a commitment on this, and he can do so in the certain knowledge that after the election, a Labour Government will continue to transform not just this country, but the wider world and lead the international community in development policy, as they have done in the past eight years, thus ensuring that the otherwise lost generation of HIV/AIDS orphans and vulnerable children will inherit a very different world.

Gareth Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on securing the debate and on the way in which she continues to campaign on the issue. I appreciate the number of oral and written parliamentary questions that she has asked on the matter and the considerable amount of travel that she has undertaken to investigate it, especially in Africa. I am also aware, from meetings that she has had with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me, of her considerable knowledge of the challenges that we and the international community more broadly face when trying to scale up support for those orphaned by the terrible epidemic.
	I also join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to World Vision and UNICEF, especially, with which I have held several conversations about the AIDS epidemic in general and specifically about how we should respond to the orphan crisis. I also join her in paying tribute to the organisations that she met on her travels in Africa to examine the issue to which she referred, and, indeed, to the National Children's Home and SABMiller.
	The sheer scale of the AIDS pandemic is well know to all hon. Members. The number of people affected is truly staggering and, as my hon. Friend said, increasing each year. However, the matter that clearly concerns us today is the tragic plight of children affected by AIDS. The increasing numbers of poor children who are living with HIV, or orphaned by AIDS, cannot fail to move us, as the example that she cited in her opening remarks made clear. I visited the Dukhathole township in Germiston, near Johannesburg, in May 2004 to see a project that we are funding, which Christian Aid and the Anglican Church are running, so I know about the scale of the challenge in just that one township. Support is being provided to those who are helping orphans and vulnerable children to access primary education and helping people to claim benefits to enable the provision of healthy food and reasonable-quality lives. Remarkable women in the township support orphans, and grandmothers and other relatives, by looking after orphans and other vulnerable children. I completely accept the fundamental point behind my hon. Friend's speech: we need to do more.
	My hon. Friend also talked about the social cost of AIDS, with many families losing one or two breadwinners. The number of children orphaned by AIDS is expected to grow from 12.3 million in 2003 to 18.4 million in 2010, and those figures are just for Africa. The risk of the AIDS epidemic taking off in a truly alarming way in Asia is fast gaining more international attention. The orphans crisis in Africa could perhaps become a significant problem there.
	My hon. Friend has rightly focused the bulk of her remarks and campaigning work on sub-Saharan Africa. Already more than a third of households in Uganda are caring for at least one orphan. It is estimated that, by 2010, some 50 million children in Africa will have lost at least one parent and that nearly 40 per cent. of those losses will be as a result of AIDS.
	There have always been orphans, of course, and in Africa they have always been cared for by their extended families. However, the effect of the AIDS pandemic is undoubtedly stretching the ability to cope in many communities to breaking point. Orphans need caring for, so carers have to find extra resources from somewhere. As the number of orphans rises, less well-off carers have to make sacrifices. Children, most often girls, are taken out of school and families have to make do with less.
	Increased poverty has a marked impact, not only owing to the immediate effects caused by poorer nutrition and poorer health, but also over the longer term. Children who are poorly nourished early in life will never reach their full potential. Poorer children often do not go to school. Evidence shows that, especially for girls, lack of education is associated with a higher risk of being both poor and of HIV infection. Hunger and poverty may lead orphans to exchange sex for money or food, so comprehensive sexual health services are thus fundamental to a truly effective and comprehensive approach. As my hon. Friend said, if we do not act to improve the opportunities for orphans and vulnerable children, poverty will continue to be transmitted down the generations, with millions denied the chances that they deserve.
	The Government made their intention clear in the strategy on AIDS in the developing world, which we published in July last year. We have committed 1.5 billion of taxpayers' money over the next three years to tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic, of which 150 million has been set aside for action to help orphans and vulnerable children. We shall also help orphans and vulnerable children through the doubling of our support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, bringing our total support to some 250 million through to 2008. HIV/AIDS orphans will also benefit from the additional funding of 36 million over four years that we provided to UNAIDSthe Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDSto support its global leadership work. That work focuses on the pandemic as a whole, but HIV/AIDS orphans are clearly part of that response. We are also providing additional funding of 80 million over four years to support the United Nations Population Fund's HIV prevention and sexual and reproductive health work with women. That, too, will help the fight against AIDS in the longer term.
	My hon. Friend will know that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that the fight against HIV and AIDS and our work to highlight the needs of Africa will be the centrepiece of our presidencies of the G8 and the European Union. During 2005, we shall focus on two areas. First, our aim is to co-ordinate more effectively the money that is available for the fight against AIDS and to leverage in more of the resources necessary to fight AIDS in general, as well as to deal with the specific problem of HIV/AIDS orphans. Secondly, we want to maintain HIV prevention momentum and to ensure an adequate focus on balanced prevention strategies such as microbicides and vaccines to reduce HIV incidence globally. Again, that will help to provide further support for HIV/AIDS orphans in the long run.
	Looking ahead, in September we will host the conference on replenishment of the global fund, back to back with a broader AIDS funding conference to examine the needs of other parts of the international system. UNICEF will, no doubt, play a key rolemy hon. Friend rightly mentioned UNICEF's crucial role in the fight against AIDS. Its strategic framework, which the UK was one of the first to endorse, provides guidelines for the global response to those issues. At the global partners forum in December in Washington, I was able to set out our initial thinking on how we will spend the 150 million that we have committed to children affected by AIDS. We are committed to spending 44 million of that support through UNICEF over the next three years.
	Part of our funding will go towards supporting national Governments' analysis of the extent of theproblem and their planning of an adequate response. To date, 17 African countries have completed comprehensive national action plans to support children affected by AIDS. My hon. Friend rightly said that national action plans are welcome, but we must monitor how they are delivered on the ground. She was also right to focus attention on developing countries' capacity to respond to the challenges of HIV/AIDS. Whereas once the high price of anti-retroviral drugs constrained our ability to respond appropriately to the epidemic in many developing countries, the issue now is whether there are enough nurses, doctors and other workers to provide support on the ground.

Sally Keeble: Does my hon. Friend accept that although we have cheaper anti-retroviral drugs for adults, the same is not true of drugs for children? Getting the price of paediatric medicines reduced is also a major issue.

Gareth Thomas: I accept that absolutely. I would not want to suggest that we do not want to see more action to reduce drug prices further. I simply say that I think that my hon. Friend's point about capacity and the need to train up more people to help to provide support to orphans and vulnerable children, and more broadly to those who are HIV positive or have full-blown AIDS, is absolutely right.
	In the context of the drugs that we can provide and are available at present to help children living with HIV, one of the things that we have been able to do to provide support through the 1.5 billion that we have set aside is to invest in trials of cheaper drugs. The particular one that I am thinking of is co-trimoxazole, which could halve the death rate for HIV infected children in Africa.
	We have invested also in a new research programme to examine the provision of anti-retroviral treatment for children in areas where money, health staff and transport facilities are in short supply. We are already providing support to a range of civil society organisations, including organisations based in the UKI gave the example of Christian Aid, which we are supporting in South Africa, which works with the Anglican Church there. There are other such organisations. We have recently increased our funding for those organisations with which we have long-term relationships. We have asked them, in a sense as part of their response to receiving the extra money, to prioritise additional work on HIV/AIDS issues.
	My hon. Friend has brought forward a particularly interesting proposal. I am grateful to her for her recent letter, setting out her proposals to support the civil society response to children affected by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. I can assure my hon. Friend that as a result of her letter we are considering her idea seriously. I have asked my officials to discuss it with other partners, including the UN and UNICEF in particular, to explore whether there are additional things that we can do in line with the idea that my hon. Friend has identified.
	This is, as my hon. Friend has alluded to, a difficult area in which to reach the right partners in a sustainable way. There are real issues about how we provide support to community-based organisations that seeks to scale up sustainable support and allows the development of capacity on the ground.
	It is right that we continue to prioritise the bulk of our funding on HIV-AIDS, so as to scale up the ability of Government to provide effective responses to the challenge in developing countries. However, I recognise that there are too many HIV and AIDS orphans in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, who are not getting the support that they need now. For that reason, my hon. Friend's proposal is timely. We are considering her idea seriously. We are discussing it with partners. I hope that she will be willing to discuss the idea further with us at the Department, when our thinking has developed and after the election has taken place.
	I believe that the 1.5 billion that we have made available over the next three years to scale up our response to HIV and AIDS orphans has set a template for others in the international community to respond to. I believe also that our replenishment conference for the global fund and our broader AIDS funding conference will help to scale up and to leverage additionally our funding for those members of the international community and those multilateral organisations that are playing such a key role in the fight against AIDS. HIV/AIDS orphans must continue to receive attention from Members of this place. My hon. Friend, as I have said, is a doughty campaigner on this issue. I look forward
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and   the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Nine o'clock.